• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Australia Awaken - ignite your torches

Narratives from Down Under

  • First Light
  • Awards
  • Budget
  • Employment
  • Race
  • Refugees
  • Political
  • Sex
  • Taxes
  • Voting
  • Women.
  • Login & Msgs

James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree

Punching above our weight

June 19, 2025 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Climate change has escalated as the global average temperature has risen above the 1.5°C limit we hoped to avoid. China is responsible for 27% of global carbon dioxide emissions, according to the BBC. China is often unfairly blamed for these emissions, despite accounting for 35% of global industrial production, according to the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR). Still, before we point fingers at other countries, perhaps we in Australia ought to properly evaluate our own carbon footprint, especially that which results from trade, including outsourcing our manufacturing to China and its consequential pollution.

China should not bear ultimate responsibility for the creation of non-recoverable waste resulting from what it manufactures on our behalf, due to following flawed economic principles. That ought to be allocated as Australia’s pollution. According to MIT, over 22% of China’s carbon dioxide emissions stem from net exports produced there for global consumption.  These emissions are classified as “trade-embodied” because China’s exports of goods and services generate the waste on behalf of the global community.

Neoclassical economics and neoliberalism in the late 19th and 20th centuries have promoted trade liberalisation and free market economies. Unsurprisingly, in 2014, Stamford University rehashed a Hayek-inspired economic myth. It claims that advanced post-industrial economies should consider outsourcing or reorganising their secondary and primary sectors, and focusing on their tertiary sector. It was based on a three-sector economic model: primary (agricultural, mining), secondary (manufacturing), and tertiary (services). One advances from the first to the third sector, leaving each level behind.

However, increasing one trophic level of an economy at the expense of others introduces risks. If a country primarily develops its primary sector, it becomes more sensitive to changes in commodity prices, agricultural weather, and environmental deterioration. Argentina has exhibited such weaknesses. Australia has retained only a remnant of its secondary trophic levels (Manufacturing), eliminating market complexity. As Aaron Patrick in the AFR said, “Australia sells the world almost nothing, relative to total exports, that requires a degree to make.”

The Pandemic’s supply chain issues, which caused inflation due to limited manufacturing in Australia, have forced subsequent administrations to evaluate the implications of not supporting a domestic manufacturing industry. In an August 2023 speech, Industry and Science Minister Ed Husic reflected this: “Australia has the highest dependency on manufactured imports and the lowest level of manufacturing self-sufficiency of any OECD country.”

A robust primary sector can provide the raw materials required for a vital secondary industry. This, in turn, can deliver the infrastructure and technologies essential for a thriving tertiary sector, that feeds back to support the primary and secondary sectors. Internally, we now lack the necessary manufacturing infrastructure capabilities, as do many Western countries. However, no modern economy will survive without some manner of primary, secondary, and tertiary levels.

Consequently, post-industrial economic narratives have facilitated the extensive outsourcing of secondary-level manufacturing, leading to a significant decline in domestic manufacturing capabilities. The fact that 35% of global manufacturing is outsourced to China is sustaining these nations’ operational economies.

According to Climate Analytics, Australia ranks 11th in worldwide per capita carbon emissions, whereas China ranks 38th, according to Visual Capitalist. Australia accounts for 4.5% of the world’s fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions, excluding imports, with 80% of this total coming from fossil fuels. Woodside’s North-West Shelf operations will continue for 40 years as a consequence of the Albanese government approval. This should considerably increase the amount of waste we produce. China’s pollution-related imports should be credited to other economies. Waste by US corporations producing in China to take advantage of reduced costs and better logistics should be blamed on the US. This is often overlooked and is particularly detrimental to Australia.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reports that China’s manufactured goods exports to Australia rose 39% to $106 billion from 2019-20 to 2022-23. Australia’s largest resource and energy market is China, and related waste is a consequence of Australian consumption.

China supplied £63.6 billion to the UK in 2024, according to the BBC. Chinese goods accounted for 13.3% of UK imports, making China the top import partner. China is Australia’s greatest import and export partner. In 2024, Australia’s exports totaled $196 billion, and its imports reached $115.6 billion, according to the ABS.

When we ignore neoliberal capitalism and capital mobility that facilitates outsourcing, we fail to acknowledge their influence, and we solely attribute carbon pollution to China. China is the outsourcer for much of the secondary trophic level of several Western economies. Global supply chains and international trade make it challenging to determine which countries are the primary sources of emissions for China’s industry. We can chart the intermediary cause, not the final accountability. The graph from ‘Our World in Data’ shows ‘production-based’ emissions per capita. It does not account for imported contributions or land use.

Selected Economies' per capita pollution figures from 1750 to 2023
Figure 1. Selected Economies’ per capita pollution figures from 1750 to 2023

Since the Global Financial Crisis, Australia has competed with the US for the highest per capita polluter in the world (excluding “trade-embodied” pollution and land use), only falling behind in 2014 and 2022. The first was a consequence of PM, Tony Abbott reversing PM, Julia Gillard’s carbon pricing policy. The second is due to the real-world lag created by pandemic lockdowns. While we fell behind in per-capita pollution in 2022, we rebounded in 2023.

One can only imagine that if we included land use (we’ve 5% of the world’s land mass) and accounted for imported “trade-embodied” pollution ($115.6 billion in imports from China in 2024), we would hold a more convincing lead position among the world’s greatest per capita polluters. Woodside’s additional 40 years of fossil fuel extraction and exporting from the North-West Shelf are surely going to give us a commanding lead for decades to come.

Better measurements are needed for effective mitigation initiatives. My father (the perpetual accountant) often said to me, “What gets measured, gets managed!” We should include our imported carbon pollution as well as our domestic and exported use. Relevant to Australians because Western economies’ post-industrial economic mantra prefers to dismiss individual contributions and ignore collective responsibility. That failure contributes to more frequent floods, droughts, and massive fires in our country. It provides excuses to minimise our commitment to reducing consumption and addressing the need to switch to batteries and renewables as anything less than an emergency.  That choice will result in loss of life, property damage, and economic penalty. We must accept responsibility for driving global temperature above 1.5 degrees, not pass the buck to a country that is manufacturing on our behalf.

References

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2024, April 30). International Trade: Supplementary Information, Calendar Year, 2019 | Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au website: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/international-trade/international-trade-supplementary-information-calendar-year/latest-release
  • Baldwin, R. (2024, January 17). China Is the World’s Sole Manufacturing superpower: a Line Sketch of the Rise. Retrieved from CEPR website: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/china-worlds-sole-manufacturing-superpower-line-sketch-rise
  • BBC. (2021, May 7). Report: China Emissions Exceed All Developed Nations Combined. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-57018837
  • BBC. (2024, July 4). China as a regional and world power – China’s international influence – Higher Modern Studies Revision. Retrieved from BBC Bitesize website: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zvwmy9q/revision/2
  • Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2021). Trade statistical pivot tables. Retrieved from Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website: https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/trade-and-investment-data-information-and-publications/trade-statistics/trade-statistical-pivot-tables
  • Grant, H., & Hare, B. (2024, August 11). Australia’s global fossil fuel carbon footprint. Retrieved from Climate Analytics website: https://climateanalytics.org/publications/australias-global-fossil-fuel-carbon-footprint
  • Haly, J. (2022, March 13). Climate change has created two very typical states of environmental disasters in the Australian landscape – The AIM Network. Retrieved from The AIM Network website: https://theaimn.com/climate-change-has-created-two-very-typical-states-of-environmental-disasters-in-the-australian-landscape/
  • Husic, E. (2023, August 23). A Future Made in Australia: Deepening Australia’s Economic Complexity | Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. Retrieved from Ministers for the Department of Industry, Science and Resources website: https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/husic/speeches/future-made-australia-deepening-australias-economic-complexity
  • Nicholas, J., & Evershed, N. (2025, June 18). Revealed: the astonishing greenhouse gas emissions that will result from the North West Shelf project. Retrieved from the Guardian website: https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/19/north-west-shelf-project-greenhouse-gas-emissions-burrup-peninsula-western-australia
  • Our World in Data. (2024). Per capita CO2 emissions. Retrieved from Our World in Data website: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?country=USA~GBR~OWID_EU27~CHN~ZAF~CAN~AUS
  • Patrick, A. (2019, October 7). Australia is rich, dumb and getting dumber. Retrieved from Australian Financial Review website: https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australia-is-rich-dumb-and-getting-dumber-20191007-p52y8i
  • Rao, P. (2025, June 5). Ranked: Top Countries by Annual Electricity Production (1985–2024). Retrieved from Visual Capitalist website: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-top-countries-by-annual-electricity-production-1985-2024/
  • Readfearn, G. (2021, May 31). Covid sent Australia’s carbon emissions plummeting in 2020 to lowest levels in 30 years. Retrieved from the Guardian website: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/31/covid-sent-australias-carbon-emissions-plummeting-in-2020-to-lowest-levels-in-30-years
  • Roberts, A. G. (2014, March 6). Calculating China’s carbon emissions from trade. Retrieved from MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology website: https://news.mit.edu/2014/calculating-chinas-carbon-emissions-from-trade
  • Roberts, E. (2014, November 1). The Economics Behind Offshoring. Retrieved from cs.stanford.edu website: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2003-04/offshoring/history.html
  • Taylor, A. (2025, April). Why U.S. Manufacturers Can’t Quit China Despite Challenges. Retrieved from Cleverence.com website: https://www.cleverence.com/articles/business-blogs/why-u.s.-manufacturers-cant-quit-china-despite-challenges/
  • The Australia Institute. (2020, August 5). Key Gillard-Era Reform Carbon Price Would Have Saved 72 Million Tonnes of Emissions. Retrieved from The Australia Institute website: https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/key-gillard-era-reform-carbon-price-would-have-saved-72-million-tonnes-of-emissions/
  • Weinreich, L. (2024, October 30). Historical Responsibility for the Climate Crisis: The Roots of the Unfair Imbalance | Climate Change Performance Index. Retrieved from Climate Change Performance Index | The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) is a scoring system designed to enhance transparency in international climate politics. website: https://ccpi.org/historical-responsibility-for-the-climate-crisis-the-roots-of-the-unfair-imbalance/

Filed Under: Climate Change

Reserves Vs Equity

June 19, 2025 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Menzies vs Chalmers

Robert Menzies boldly boasted of £120,000,000 budget deficits in August 1962, as emphasised in Gareth Hutchens’ article in the ABC during the Pandemic, headed “Unlike today’s Liberals, Robert Menzies boasted of delivering large budget deficits“. In contrast, Labour Treasurer Jim Chalmers boasted of delivering consecutive budget surpluses in September 2024. This radical shift in perspective occurred in the late twentieth century, due to the transition from Keynesian economics to Friedman’s monetarism and neoliberalism, which Thatcher and Reagan endorsed. The Thatcherite-originated misinformation that fills the media and public discourse suggests that the Government is like a household and must balance its books. The household analogy as a perspective on federal monetary systems lacks any correlation with national accounting book records. It fails to appreciate the two-tiered monetary system, which no business emulates. The closest parallel I can imagine to a two-tiered system is a company keeping two sets of books: one for the tax authorities and one for the investors. Even then, it is not even a decent approximation.  The press and public were not always so uninformed about why it matters or who has the proper perspective: Menzies or Chalmers? The contemporary view primarily focuses on the significance of public debt, while private debt is considered a matter of individual concern, not national.

Understanding money flows requires understanding the distinction between the nature of Central Bank reserves, which are exclusive to banking, and deposit money in private banks (and cash) circulating in the economy for the private equity/credit of firms, states, municipalities, and citizens. The essential distinction is to which institution the liability for “money” is due. Bank reserves are the Central Bank’s liabilities, while deposits from corporations, states, municipalities, and citizens (both foreign and domestic) are the liabilities of private banks. Economists often confuse the two-tiered monetary system, in which only Banks can hold reserves, with the economy’s money supply. They rarely discuss money in terms of liabilities because accounting is not an orthodox economist’s discipline. Despite this shortcoming, the  Bank of England has made efforts to educate economists, the media and the public.

Framing the question of who held the valid perspective, after a historic Labour victory, creates a challenging choice between a conservative leader and a progressive Treasurer. Many an article or social commentary uses Chalmers’ surplus as proof of Labor’s economic competence, but conveniently forgets that the Liberal’s John Howard government also generated public surpluses. This is an emotional challenge for progressives and conservatives alike, who contend Margaret Thatcher’s assertion that the government has no money of its own is correct, and it all belongs to the Taxpayer.

The Two-tiered Monetary System

Today, there is a lot of talk about “balancing the budget” and “fiscal responsibility,” and despite the Hudson Institute’s argument that it is a myth, even their claim misunderstands. Typically, comparisons are made between the federal budget and household or business budgets. While often repeated, this analogy is flawed even though endorsed by most orthodox economists. Herein lies the reason for recognising that modern economies are two-tiered, as accounting reality establishes that reserves are distinct from privately banked money supply.

Wall Street primary dealers, mandated to buy government bonds to underpin US Treasury auctions, know that central banks can manufacture reserves at “whim”. Reserves are the Central Bank’s liabilities and are only distributed via accounts at the central bank to the registered private banking system. These banks all hold accounts at the Central Bank containing what is referred to as “M0” money or “vertical money”. This is independent from the rest of the economy that hold deposit accounts at private banks that is known as “M1” money or “horizontal money”, in the finance industry.  The Australian Central Bank’s computer (the RITS system) stores reserves as computer entries. Vertical money moves between bank accounts with the central bank, and deposits can be moved amongst private accounts within the Private banks.  But reserves and private deposits do not mix. Banks use reserves to pay for movements of money in the second tier of the monetary system (i.e. deposits in private banks).  Governments use reserves to pay banks to deposit money into a person’s account for — say for example, a welfare cheque.  Banks, pay other banks with reserves but they can not utilise reserve “money” to buy goods and services or earn interest outside the banking system. If you take out a loan from a bank that creates a deposit account with your bank but it needs to “travel” to another bank to pay for a house, for example, then the “travel” is done via the reserves, not the deposit. The Federal reserve’s function is to facilitate the transfer of account balances between banks which then are reflected in deposit balances of households and firms. To illustrate this two-tiered system as accounting records for the entities concerned.

The Liability for Money matters
The Liability for Money matters

Central Bank reserves are their exclusive liabilities, and deposits are the exclusive liabilities of private banks. Never the two will overlap, except for the exception of printed money.  Every banknotes – foreign and domestic – in your possession tells you which central bank hold it as as its exclusive liability.  To issue notes at a private bank, that bank must surrender its equivalent value of reserve balances to be issued that cash by the Central Bank. None of it says it is the property of or liability of the Taxpayer, no matter what any media, or neoliberal politician says otherwise.  To be the printed creation of or property of the taxpayer and to be passed off as the liability of the Central Bank is a criminal offense in every country on Earth.

Reserves are utilised to facilitate all financial transactions between banks, including government expenditures, and taxation, as well as the circulation of physical currency notes and coins. To illustrate the relationsip by way of a Ven diagram:

Ven Diagram of Money Classes
Ven Diagram of Money Classes

The real source of Currency.

Allow me to use a personal anecdote using my father’s wallet to explain monetary origins. I remember his wallet filled with Australian pounds, shillings, and pence. However, my father began using Australian decimal currency in 1966. As a child, I loved collecting obsolete coins, but I don’t know what happened to my collection across multiple house moves. No decimal currency was printed or supplied by the taxpayer. The government has to issue it from scratch (irrespective of what exchange they provided for one’s pounds, shillings, and pence), like any other currency in the globe. Every Australian note you carry reminds you it is the liability of the RBA. In Australia counterfeiting is a federal violation punishable by up to 14 years in prison for individuals and fines for corporations, it is and never has been “taxpayer money”. Perhaps we should lose the “taxpayer’s money” narrative.

The Reserve Bank issues Australian currency, not domestic taxpayers, not China,n not the US, or any other trading partners. All currencies today are issued by governments through the Central Bank they created as an act of legislation that is the bank of Government no matter what legislative illusions of independence each maintain.

First premise: The citizens of a monetary sovereign country are the primary users of the currency, and the Government is the issuer of the currency. That status is the primary distinction that matters most when understanding the fundamentals of money.

Exchange Settlement

“Reserves” as Central Bank liabilities are what modern banks need operate and are managed in the “Exchange Settlement system” (ESA) in Australia. The ESA runs on the RITS system. In 2001,  my colleagues and I in the RBA’s technical computer department rebuilt the ESA monetary system’s on an Alpha VAX/VMS OS computer system to reverse the Reserve Bank’s outsourcing of management of the RITS system. Besides providing operating system experience as a former Digital Equipment (which initially made VMS systems) employee, I personally redesigned the RITS system’s operations and inhouse user security Interfaces in 2001.

Bonds: Long-term Deposits with the Government

Government deficits are the difference between spending and taxes.  It is a difference not a debt but that difference is covered by the sale of Government Treasury securities/bonds one reason of which is reminiscent of the era before 1971 when monetary systems were backed by the value of precious metals (i.e. gold). Not as necessary to do in the era of fiat currencies.  Nevertheless, we sell bonds and incur an interest debt.  Government security sales are an asset swap of money for an interest-bearing “note”. The Australian Treasury issues these, essentially, promissory notes for sale, and the Reserve Bank pays the interest debt (coupon rate) when due. Treasury securities are like savings accounts with the Government. Operationally, Bonds are similar to lending cash to a bank for a long-term deposit to secure interest payments, except that investors lend their money to the Treasury for a bond that bears interest. Investing in bonds tends to be more profitable than long-term deposits in banks. That interest expense is what we refer to as the “government debt”.

Bonds like Taxes, absorb money from the economy and dampen demand for goods and services.  Bonds are although assumed “to pay for” government deficits created by government spending.  That spending creates a private sector surplus whether it is for infrastructure, education health care, subsidies, transfer payments of wages for public servants.  The accounting flow for spending is as illustrated:

$100 Welfare Payment to a household
$100 Welfare Payment to a household

Second premise: The government’s deficit creates a private sector’s surplus or increased the net worth of recipients. It isn’t a loan, it is a payment, and it is not expected to be returned except where taxes are applicable.

Grandchildren’s debts.

Popular economic folklore asserts that government deficits are disadvantageous for households, and to add emotional weight, they are nefariously framed as a debt your grandchildren will owe. That framing is perfect for fostering debt fears in parents. in reality the Government’s deficit increases the net worth of the household, as demonstrated by following the accounting transaction between institutions.

 Buying a bond, creates a deficit in the buyer’s accounts and a surplus in the Treasury’s reserve accounts. Banks, individuals or businesses give their money to the Government in exchange for bonds. These bonds earn interest, which is the debt the Central Bank pays. When the bond matures, the Reserve Bank reverses the asset swap and the money originally paid for the bond is returned like a banks does for a long-term deposit.  Because Bonds are transferable, the whom, that is paid might not be the original person/bank/corporation, but that entity will have paid for the value of that transfer.

Your grandchildren will never have to pay the interest debt of a bond; only the Reserve Bank is responsible for that. The same bank that issues the State’s currency. The Reserve Bank creates reserve “money” using keystrokes in a computer system called RITS and pays the interest on the bonds.  In fact, as an investor, you can leave bonds to your grandchildren as Government Securities are transferable, which would be a bonus, not a debt. So, not a burden to your grandchildren, so perhaps we can also lose that narrative.

Third premise: The “borrowing” of the Government to cover deficits in spending is an asset swap with the private sector that drains money from the private economy and “lends” it to the Government for its central bank (which issues money) to pay the interest on bond maturity later. Every central banker involved in monetary operations understands that it is their job to generate the money the Government spends first into the bank accounts of its citizens or firms.

Cash, Loans & Spending

When government spend it involves creating the reserves it needs to transfer to the balances of private banks. The bank that receives the reserve balance, and credits the allocated recipient’s account with the private bank. The accounting transaction is the same if it is welfare cheque, a bond interest payment, or a subsidy to a fossil fuel company or to pay for excessively expensive AUKUS submarines. When these funds aren’t available because the government decides to spend less than it taxes (known as a government surplus),the money supply shrinks. The citizens in an economy may decide it wants a greater money supply, in which case  consumers borrow from banks. Private banks, not the Reserve Bank of Australia, are liable for “M1 money” which they supply as deposits in customer’s accounts when they take out loans. The only role the Reserve Bank’s reserves play, is to transfer these loans between banks, only where that is required.  Again, it is encumbent on the Reserve Bank to ensure there are enough reserves available to banks, to facilitate these transfers, in which case the reserve balances are added or subtracted from, as is required. As an example of such substractions, taxes paid reduce the balance of reserves held by banks as it reduces money in the economy but adds to the Official Public Account (OPA) of Treasury. It is no longer part of the private sector. In essence, it’s deleted from the economy.

Accounting summary

So, if one might summerise the transactional movements that affect the accounting balances of the two-tiered economy of public and private monetary systems, with particular reference to how these transactions affects the Government reserve accounting balances, it would appear as follows:

(1) Taxes drain money from the economy but add to the reserves in the OPA account.  

(2) Government spending drains money from the Reserves but creates a surplus in the private economy.

(3) Treasury’s bonds add money to the reserves but drain money from the private economy.

(4) Debt servicing (interest on bonds) drains money from the reserves but adds to the private sector.

(5) Printing hard currency reduces banks’ reserve accounts and the Central Bank reserves. It supplies hard currency to the citizens of the economy via the private banks.

And finally – and this is where Menzies understood what Chalmers seems oblivious of:

(6) Surpluses mean taxes (drains from the private economy) are larger than spending (creating money for the private sector), and so they drain money from the private sector and add to the Central Bank reserves. The net movement of accounting funds is a reduction of money in the private economy.

So, where do citizens turn when the Government restricts the money supply by running a surplus? They go to the Banks and loan money!

And what happened when Howard had a surplus? The same thing happened when Chalmers had a surplus.

What happens to private debt in the economy? It usually increases.  

Did that happen under Howard and Chalmers’ surplus regime? Yes.

Final Premise: Deficits put money into the private economy, and Surpluses take it out. However, private banking for the public is a separate set of financing, distinct from the Bank’s reserve account provision.

So, Menzies boasted about deficits because he supplied more money to citizens. On the other hand, Chalmers’s boasting about surpluses means he is pushing citizens into higher private debt who do not have sufficient savings to weather the financial depletion brought on the inflated costs of living, because he is draining the private economy of economic resources.

 

References

  • Babcock, C. (2007, November 2). VMS Operating System Is 30 Years Old; Customers Believe It Can Last Forever 2 | InformationWeek. Retrieved from Informationweek.com website: https://www.informationweek.com/software-services/vms-operating-system-is-30-years-old-customers-believe-it-can-last-forever-2
  • Collyer, D. (2014, October 15). Australia’s Addiction to Private Debt. Retrieved from Prosper Australia website: https://www.prosper.org.au/2014/10/australias-addiction-to-private-debt/
  • Hewett, J. (2024, September 30). Why Jim Chalmers wants to boast about his budget surplus. Retrieved from Australian Financial Review website: https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/why-budget-surplus-is-up-up-up-20240930-p5keli
  • Hutchens, G. (2020, August 29). Unlike today’s Liberals, Robert Menzies boasted of delivering large budget deficits. Retrieved from Abc.net.au website: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-30/liberal-party-of-robert-menzies-proudly-delivered-large-deficits/12609876
  • Kane, T., & Hubbard, G. (2012, August 24). The Myth of the “Balanced Approach” to Fiscal Policy. Retrieved from Hudson Institute website: https://www.hudson.org/economics/the-myth-of-the-balanced-approach-to-fiscal-policy
  • Lavorgna, J. (2023). US Macroeconomics The Fed Just Did Massive QE. Retrieved from https://www.smbcgroup.com/americas/getmedia/527d4204-cf36-4e03-8453-9ffc94ad5cf2/The-Fed-Just-Did-Massive-QE-Mar-17-2023-NCFD.pdf
  • Mcleay, M., Radia, A., & Thomas, R. (2014). Money Creation in the Modern Economy. The Bank of England. Retrieved from The Bank of England website: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy
  • Murphy, R. (2020). Tackling the idea that there is only taxpayers’ money – because that is completely untrue. Retrieved from Funding the Future website: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/11/23/tackling-the-idea-that-there-is-only-taxpayers-money-because-that-is-completely-untrue/
  • Murphy, R. (2022). The double entry behind the money creation in the central bank reserve accounts. Retrieved from Funding the Future website: https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2022/06/21/the-double-entry-behind-the-money-creation-in-the-central-bank-reserve-accounts/
  • Nuveen. (2024, December 2). Private credit continues rapid expansion. Retrieved from Australian Financial Review website: https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/private-credit-continues-rapid-expansion-20241128-p5kuao
  • Reserve Bank of Australia. (2016, February 6). About RITS. Retrieved from Reserve Bank of Australia website: https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/rits/about.html
  • Schumm, T. (2025, February 2). Primary Dealers’ Role in Stabilizing the US Financial System. Retrieved from CGAA website: https://www.cgaa.org/article/primary-dealers
  • Wray, L. R. (2014). Central Bank Independence: Myth and Misunderstanding. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2407707

Filed Under: Budget

The Understatement of Unemployment

April 24, 2025 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

In Australia, the media and government utilise Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) unemployment statistics. These indicate that the jobless rate has been rising since late 2022 after a post-pandemic decline. I am not referring to percentages, which are a function of the total labour force (also trending upwards), but rather to “real” numbers. Still, I have to query the authenticity of these figures. National unemployment metric methodology seldom characterises unemployment as individuals without compensated employment or those unable to secure jobs.  Instead, the methodology restricts or omits various groups of the unemployed from being included in the count.

The orthodox economic model posits that unemployment is influenced by supply and demand dynamics. “Supply” refers to workers seeking employment who possess a reservation wage that they are prepared to accept. This is absurd considering the desperation for employment among many. ABS, methodology incorporates active job searching and the absence of gig employment to qualify as unemployed. Unavailability, because of earlier responsibilities, any association with a gig role (regardless of compensation), or lack of proof of a current job search during the past month results in exclusion from ABS figures.

The official unemployment measure is entirely arbitrary and constrained by an institutional structure. The individuals included in the count are strictly determined by a nation’s specific interpretation of a series of methodological guidelines. This may adhere closely or loosely to the regulations established by the International Labour Organisation (Sorrentino, 2000). Each shift or deviation of the methodology specific to a nation, garners different results. For instance, limiting active job searches to the past four weeks yields a particular unemployment rate. Extending the timeframe to five or six weeks produces a likely different number. In Europe, the unemployment definition specifies an unemployed person as one currently available for work in the next fortnight, as opposed to the “immediate” availability for work requirement set by Australia’s ABS (Eurostat, 2010). This results in a variation in the unemployment rate. The rate a country selects is solely determined by the prescribed regulations and the class for whom those guidelines are established. The unemployment rate is based on the cut-off specified within the methodology and the demographic it is intended to serve. “For whom the bell tolls” (to cite John Donne) is significant — and the bell tolls for class divisions in Australia. The ABS, in particular, rings its bell for the Capitalist class.

By “capitalist class,” I refer to the Veblen Institutionalist’s subdivision of the traditional Marxian ruling class. This includes enterprise owners and managers whose income is derived from profits, on accumulating capital through asset ownership and who predominantly own the means of production (Pluta & Leathers, 1978, p. 128). The statistic’s main domestic use is to assess the unimpeded access to the working class by the capitalist class. It is imperative to understand that ABS statistics do NOT represent individuals without compensated employment or those unable to secure jobs. The exclusions by the ABS make this very evident. I will substantiate my argument by looking at the ABS methodology some of which is provided in their 2023 online publications (ABS, 2023).

 

  1. The ABS data excludes individuals unable to commence immediate employment. As highlighted in Gareth Hutchens’s articles in the ABC, excludes thousands of unemployed individuals (Hutchens, 2021).
  2. Exclusions for uncompensated labour in a familial enterprise, busking or street vending. Why? Due to your engagement in other demanding tasks, you may not be instantly accessible to the Capitalist Class.
  3. Excluding individuals participating in the government unemployment programs such as the PaTH initiative. Why? It is necessary to exit such programs prior to embarking in properly compensated labour for the Capitalist Class.
  4. Excluding Australians employed for zero hours due to ‘economic reasons’ yet maintaining a gig attachment. Why? Being committed to a “job attachment” (as termed by the ABS), which is fully unpaid due to the absence of employment provided, serves as an obstacle to the exploitation by the Capitalist Class (ABS, 2021). By the conclusion of 2024, the estimated figures were projected to range from 80,000 to 90,000, while in 2020, the numbers fluctuated between 200,000 and over one million individuals. (see Graph 1)
  5. Excluding unemployed individuals lacking evidence of actively seeking employment due to familial, personal, or other obligations. Why? To prevent distraction from the Capitalist Class’s request for their engagement.
  6. Exclusions of transient foreign individuals in the country pursuant to the 12/16 regulation (see ABS, 2023 again). Why? Lack of acquaintance with the culture, work, and social environment can hinder fully assimilated employment engagement by the Capitalist Class.
  7. Excluding those who have been employed by any other entity for over one hour within a month. Why? During the designated “reference week” or the four weeks preceding its end, you were not available for exclusive employment by anyone in the capitalist class.
  8. Excluding anyone over the age of 65, regardless of their active job seeking status. Why? Your age, physical ability, and other factors may restrict your potential for complete exploitation by the capitalist class. We live in an ageist society that dismisses individuals long before they reach 65, regardless of their experience or abilities.

ABS measures represent an arbitrary subset of the labour force that is not only unemployed lacking in any source of income, (outside of government welfare or family support) and also subject to a list of exclusions. This sub-group is characterised by age limits, active job-seeking behaviour, immediate availability, absence of distractions, and no potential impediment to engagement in capitalist exploitation whatsoever at any interval of time longer than an hour in four weeks. That is a rather limited subset.

Its size is consistently half to one-third smaller than the actual count of individuals to whom the Australian Government disburses welfare for unemployment (Jobseeker).  I should additionally declare that the number of individuals compensated by Jobseeker has also increased since mid-2023.

 

Graph 1. Alternate Unemployment measures from Pandemic to end of 2024
Graph 1. Alternate Unemployment measures from Pandemic to end of 2024

 

When encountering media or social media statements such as “The unemployment rate is currently at a 48-year low,” as reported by the ABS, I would argue that this is entirely misleading. When reiterating that nonsense, reflect on the agenda and propaganda of the capitalist and ruling class. Irrespective of whether it is done intentionally, naively, consciously, or otherwise, it is misleading. It also has consequences such as influencing the RBA to raise interest rates (Haly, 2024). What is a more accurate depiction of unemployment? Is there data that provide a more accurate assessment of individuals without compensated employment or those unable to secure jobs?

Examine the results of Roy Morgan’s methodology presented in Graph 2. It suggests that the unemployment rate in Australia, is nearing 10%, and the underemployment rate, is over 20%. Both ABS and Roy Morgan indicate that numerically, unemployment has increased since late 2022, but which do you consider to be a more accurate representation of a societal state?

 

Fig 2. Under and unemployment in Australia 2013 - 2024
Fig 2. Under and unemployment in Australia 2013 – 2024

 

Examine the two measures of job vacancies, which, although also arbitrarily measured, originate from distinct governmental sources and methodologies. Examine the disparity between existing vacant positions and the number of people who are either unemployed or unable to secure adequately sufficient employment.

At election time, such news is often politically undesirable, particularly as we seek to prevent a resurgence of the dysfunctional ultra-conservative governments. The present government may have demonstrated greater stability than the preceding nearly ten years marked by dysfunction, corruption, and scandals under the Liberals, but it remains less than optimal (Seccombe, 2023). Unemployment has not improved, and the government must enhance its efforts. I would advocate for a Federal Job Guarantee; nonetheless, it will likely face vehement opposition from the capitalist class. We should advocate for Full Employment policies reminiscent of the ones that resulted in dominantly under 2% unemployment for 25 years following Labour Prime Minister John Curtin’s initiative, but minimally, we must dismiss the corporate and political rhetoric that claims Australia has low unemployment (Knox-Haly & Haly, 2024).

 

 

Filed Under: Employment

The Flaws of Universal Basic Income

July 30, 2023 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

The threat of Artificial Intelligence effectively doing jobs has raised fears that tomorrow’s world will be increasingly jobless. There are competing proposals to resolve the societal fallout of a jobless world.

UBI - Not the cash grab without consequence
UBI – Not the cash grab without consequence

One proposal is a Universal Basic Income (UBI) which entails the provision of a consistent and unqualified monetary allowance to every member of a given society, irrespective of their financial standing, employment situation, or any other relevant considerations. It has had several well-known advocates, from Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang to tech billionaire Elon Musk. Variations on the UBI have been trialled, such as in Finland recently from January 2017 to December 2018, where 2,000 unemployed people in Finland received an unconditional monthly payment of €560 ($634) instead of their usual unemployment benefit. The results were mixed and not the solution people were expecting. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) research on Basic Income holds significant value due to its nuanced and comprehensive analysis of nations that have implemented this policy.

The other proposal is a Federal Job Guarantee. The concept of a  job guarantee (JG) is where the federal government provides a publicly financed employment opportunity to individuals willing and able to work but unable to secure employment within the private sector. The government assumes the role of the “employer of last resort,” guaranteeing employment opportunities for all individuals seeking work. The program’s primary objective is to achieve both full employment and price stability to provide a sustainable solution to the dual problems of inflation and unemployment. This is accomplished through the establishment of a buffer stock of employed individuals who receive only the minimum wage. These individuals are engaged in a range of socially beneficial activities, which are determined and organised at the Federal, State and Local levels. Examples of such activities could include infrastructure projects, community services, and environmental initiatives.

This article does not delve into the intricacies of a job guarantee. Instead, it critically evaluates the UBI as the labour market policy of choice. Ten vectors of evaluation are presented within this article.

1. Lack of Inflation Controls and Productivity Enhancement

The absence of inflation controls in a Universal Basic Income (UBI) contrasts with the counter-cyclical nature of a job guarantee. The job guarantee is highly effective in mitigating the adverse effects of deflation and inflation. Therefore, it has been maintained that a UBI inherently contributes to inflation due to its injection of funds to consumers, which is not productivity linked to the economy. An equivalent increase in the production of goods and services does not accompany a UBI. The primary recipients are low-income individuals, as the existing capitalist system has already generated significant inequality. These individuals are more likely to spend the additional funds in the economy but may not contribute to producing goods and services. The prominence of financialisation in economic crises has already led to a rise in debt obligations without effectively enhancing the real economy’s production capacity in sectors that can be used to service the mounting debt. This phenomenon is particularly evident among affluent individuals who accumulate and horde income in off-shore facilities. The provision of income to individuals with low incomes that do not effectively enhance productivity, unlike a Job Guarantee program, compounds these failings. Consequently, this approach may result in inevitable economic price increases, as corporate entities will likely exploit the increased income. This was evident in price gouging long after pandemic supply shocks abated.

2. Reinforcement of Structural Under-Class and Inequity Issues

Universal Basic Income (UBI) fails to promote job preparedness effectively and may contribute to prolonged unemployment. Protracted unemployment presents challenges due to the social and psychological consequences associated with extended periods of unemployment. Peter Warr outlines the detrimental effects on mental well-being, “typically described in terms of increased anxiety, depression, insomnia, irritability, lack of confidence, listlessness, and general nervousness” (Warr et al. Pg. 53). Clinical depression can manifest as early as three weeks, and individuals experiencing it for an extended period may exhibit declining and suboptimal psychological functioning.

It is worth noting that the government does not explicitly commit to achieving full employment, and even when it does strive for “full employment,” it does so within the confines of the flawed concept that restricts it to the Reserve Bank of Australia’s NAIRU (A predetermined level of acceptable unemployment purported to offset inflation). Parallel to the prevailing circumstances observed in Western societies, this phenomenon forms a hierarchical subpopulation dependent on a governing body’s benevolence, akin to individuals’ reliance on NewStart/JobSeeker in Australia on the “benevolence” of federal governments. The government and media often stigmatise individuals who rely on welfare as NEATS (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) and dole-bludgers, implying that the unemployed have willingly chosen not to seek employment. Universal Basic Income (UBI) aligns with the prevailing neoliberal discourse by acknowledging the existence of structural unemployment and insufficient salaries, thereby perpetuating ongoing inequality.

3. Subsidy for Private Businesses and Wage Deflation

The real job gaps a JG needs to fill are enormous.
The real job gaps a JG needs to fill are enormous.

Implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) does not exert any pressure on the private sector to enhance wages for the limited number of available jobs. The Job Guarantee compels the private sector to engage in competitive wage offerings to attract workers. On the contrary, a UBI could be perceived as a form of government assistance provided to private enterprises. Companies may reduce their labour expenditures due to the government providing a ‘basic income’. Implementing a UBI can result in wage deflation since companies may exploit this policy to justify decreasing employees’ compensation. Corporations motivated by the objective of increasing profits may promptly reduce remuneration to the labour force to minimise costs associated with their factors of production. Wage stagnation poses a significant concern in numerous Western nations, as the growth of wages has become disconnected from productivity advances over an extended time. Implementing this policy could potentially expedite the “Uberization of jobs” phenomenon since it would substantially subsidise companies. Consequently, employers may experience diminished incentives to provide a salary that ensures a decent standard of living relative to the inflation a UBI would trigger.

4. Insufficient Poverty Reduction and Neglect of Specific Needs

The effectiveness of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) in reducing poverty is not guaranteed, and the potential inflationary consequences discussed earlier could diminish the purchasing power of the income provided. In most nations, social welfare programs are often designed with means-testing mechanisms and are specifically aimed at assisting specific disabled individuals who are determined to be in need. Governments will typically treat Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a financial welfare replacement for targeted welfare programs that specifically cater to individuals requiring costly disability mitigating measures.

The unemployment rates among individuals with Downs syndrome are typically above 80%. A UBI does nothing to encourage them to seek employment opportunities where they so desire actively. A UBI could exacerbate their disability because it is insufficient to deal with needs inherent to mitigate their physical or social disadvantage. The UBI fails to adequately address the intrinsic needs that are more expensive. Inadequate payment will result in a heightened level of relative poverty for the receiver without the alleviation that an individual without disabilities could experience as an improvement to their standard of living. The long-term sustainability of an inflationary Universal Basic Income (UBI) is doubtful, even for those without disabilities. The UBI is not a poverty buffer stock like a Job Guarantee. Although not as significant, it can have implications for some income groups since it may result in a movement of individuals within higher taxation thresholds.

5. Lack of Dignity and Meaningful Engagement

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is characterised by treating individuals solely as consumption units. This reflects a perspective reminiscent of neo-liberal ideologies. In contrast, a Job Guarantee program offers a more dignified approach. It expands our societal understanding of what constitutes a paid occupation and assigns social significance to those now deemed unemployable by the private sector. The implication is that a UBI can be considered discriminatory since it creates divisions within society based on individuals’ earned or supplied income. The media often employs derogatory labels such as “Dole Bludgers,” “Welfare Queens,” “Freeloaders,” or “Lazy Bums” to refer to individuals receiving unemployment benefits. However, it is essential to note that the current economy does not offer adequate private job opportunities to accommodate the unemployed population, let alone those who are underemployed. There is a lack of evidence within societal and media contexts to suggest that these attitudes will undergo any transformation for the better.

6. Unconditional Income and Its Effects on Job Market

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is disbursed to individuals without any stipulation for employment or the need to be willing to work. The absence of conditions attached to UBI may result in certain persons declining employment opportunities due to its assurance of financial stability. The circumstance above may not necessarily be considered a drawback in workplaces with inadequate wages or workplace dysfunctionality. However, it is essential to note that implementing a minimum wage job guarantee exerts pressure on companies to offer improved salaries and working conditions. This motivation is comparatively diminished under a UBI system. Consequently, the economy may see a decline in productivity, potentially leading to inflationary pressures. This decline can be attributed to a subsequent reduction in the labour force and a fall in the availability of goods and services, resulting in a diminished social surplus within the market.

7. Psychological Benefits and Social Well-Being

Psychological benefits can be associated with active participation in a Job Guarantee program, which entails providing community-based employment opportunities sponsored by the federal government but deployed at the state and local levels. It can be tailored to the talents and preferences of the individuals involved. A paid, personally rewarding and socially appreciated job offers psycho-social advantages that a UBI cannot supply. When individuals are left to rely solely on their own resources and have minimal financial means, even though it may enhance their ability to survive, it may not enhance their willingness. A UBI without work can also contribute to a social disconnection that increases the likelihood of engaging in a lack of self-worth and drug and alcohol misuse. Engaging in regular job duties within a professional setting mitigates these challenges and fosters an enhanced perception of personal value, a facet that is not achieved through implementing a UBI.

8. Hobbies vs. Contributions to the Community

Society needs to expand their narrow perspective of a job.
Society needs to expand their narrow perspective of a job.

The concept of work pertains to activities performed on behalf of others, while hobbies refer to activities pursued for personal fulfilment. The proposition of utilising Universal Basic Income (UBI) to finance one’s pastime is argued by some proponents. It can be contended that this approach fosters self-indulgence without necessarily providing individuals with sufficient compensation for their societal contributions. Implementing a job guarantee program involves individuals in significant community initiatives, as the employment opportunities are specifically designed and executed within the local community context. Work is a contribution that has the potential to offer meaningful work opportunities, even to individuals who may face disadvantages. Various social enterprises, like Anglicare, Big Issue, Endeavour Packaging, and Clean Force Property Services, among others, exemplify these opportunities. The effectiveness of a UBI in facilitating socially inclined individuals to participate in beneficial community activities in a financially feasible manner will be contingent upon their capability, stability (both financial and otherwise), and inclination. The convergence of these characteristics to promote the societal benefit of UBI is expected to be more limited than normalised.

9. Dependency on Government Goodwill to address Inequity Issues

A Universal Basic Income (UBI) relieves the central government of its need to ensure substantial work opportunities, instead relying on the government’s benevolence to sustain fair payment levels to alleviate poverty. An analysis of the NewStart/JobSeeker program, pensions, and other social payments reveals a lack of willingness among Western governments to adopt these measures. The UBI has limited efficacy in addressing social and financial inequities due to its constrained potential for productivity growth, inflationary implications, and the potential for social exclusion. Moreover, there is a significant probability that the UBI may be implemented at a level below the poverty line, as evidenced by numerous existing welfare programs.

10. Universality versus Dignity-based income.

One of the primary contentions against implementing a UBI is providing financial resources to individuals who don’t require it. Instead of advocating for universality, it is argued that the provision of any basic Income should be subject to limitations. By implementing a “Dignified Basic Income” (DBI) primarily aimed at individuals who are physically or psychologically unable to engage in employment, the program can effectively prioritise assistance for those most in need of a social safety net. This focused strategy guarantees that resources are allocated to individuals with authentic requirements, hence diminishing income disparity and augmenting the overall effectiveness in mitigating poverty. By directing attention towards a Dignified Basic Income aimed at persons unable to participate in the workforce, it becomes possible to enhance the program’s cost management efficiency and ensure that resources are allocated to those who require them the most. Implementing this focused strategy enhances the program’s long-term sustainability by allocating resources towards individuals with distinct needs. This category encompasses those who experience severe disabilities, chronic illnesses, or other problems that impede their ability to engage in conventional forms of employment.

The proposition of a Job Guarantee or “Employer of Last Resort” (ELR) program is frequently advocated by heterodox economists to achieve complete employment. A DBI program designed for individuals who are physically or mentally unable to engage in employment can be a valuable addition to such a scheme. An accompanying focused DBI acknowledges each person’s inherent worth and significance, encompassing those unable to participate in employment. One potential benefit is the mitigation of social stigma commonly linked to receiving unemployment or disability benefits. The promotion of inclusion and compassion within society can be achieved by providing a decent income to individuals who cannot engage in the job market owing to actual constraints. Job Guarantee is for involuntary unemployment. It is imperative to establish a clear distinction between incapacity and unwillingness.   A social welfare program such as a DBI should not be designed to support those who, of their own volition and without any mental internal or external constraints, opt in a parasitic manner (as might be typical of the leisure class ) not to seek employment. This is yet another reason it should never be “Universal”.

Conclusion

Numerous esteemed individuals have passionately advocated for the potential benefits of introducing a Universal Basic Income as a viable remedy for the inadequacies of Newstart/Jobseeker and other subpar welfare initiatives. The objectives for these actions are rooted in progressive agendas that aim to address poverty and uplift individuals from the lower echelons of society. The objectives and devotion to the larger societal welfare are deserving of applause. There is a valid argument in favour of advocating for the augmentation of Newstart/Jobseeker allowances and social welfare payments and the reduction of substantial subsidies provided to wealthy people to foster a more resilient labour market. Nevertheless, asserting that a Universal Basic Income is how these objectives may be securely accomplished is a formula for disillusionment.

—-//—-

Journal References:

Warr, Peter, et al. “Unemployment and Mental Health: Some British Studies.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 44, no. 4, Jan. 1988, pp. 47–68, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1988.tb02091.x.

‌

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized

RBA Review part 2

December 4, 2022 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

This is a continuation of my October 2022 submissions in accordance with the review of the RBA announced by Treasurer Jim Chalmers in July. The continuation of my letter to the RBA addresses some of the public’s misperceptions concerning money, banking and the Reserve Bank of Australia. The first part of the letter appeared in the previous issue of Auswakeup, listed as part 1.

Misperceptions.

The issues of monetary approaches to affecting Unemployment and Fiat economies I have previously addressed are among many common public and media misrepresentations of the banking system. In these areas, it should be incumbent upon the government to educate the public through public broadcasting so that the expectations of the Reserve Bank are properly evaluated. These myths include:

  • Banks can only lend out money they have from depositors.
  • Credit is an extension of a money multiplier based on deposit reserves.
  • Quantitative Easing is printing free finance into the money supply.
  • Federal Treasury deficits are a liability to taxpayers.

At a Keystroke.

Money in Australia’s economy has two sources. First, that which the Government Treasury supplies through its fiscal agent, the Reserve Bank. In short, that money is spent into existence by the Federal Government. This money is called “Vertical” money, which exists within exchange settlement accounts between the Reserve Bank and the Private banks. As the public is not a joint holder of accounts of this type, such money is not available for lending to the public. Its only purpose is for interbank transactions, as well as the provision of hard currency (coins and banknotes) to banks for servicing the needs of their depositors. Secondly, a larger pool of credit via lending is generated “ex nihilo” in the economy through private banking, referred to as “horizontal” money. The Bank of England has explained this in detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw] When a bank lends, a deposit IOU is created within that bank using digital keystrokes. A customer’s deposit is both the bank’s liability and the customer’s asset. Deposits are fundamentally an IOUs from the bank. Similarly, when a bank makes a loan, the loan contract becomes a liability for the borrower and an asset for the bank. The banks create money for borrowers and also receive profit (in the form of interest) for themselves. There is a common banking franchise myth, that depositors provide deposits to participate in the funding of lending for which depositors receive interest payments for allowing the redirection of their funds.  In this misunderstood perspective, the “franchiser” is the Bank assigned the right to market and distribute money on behalf of the depositor. The perpetuation of this myth in public debate and political pronouncements does a disservice to the public good.

Deposits/Reserves relevancy

Credit creation is simply about a bank finding a credit-worthy customer with whom it can create a digital deposit as an account with that bank with the expectation of future interest payments. The loan to the borrower becomes a bank asset, with an accompanying liability created by a computer entry, which generates the deposit for the borrower. None of the aforementioned Bank reserves is touched, and neither are deposits. The exchange settlement Account reserves are used only when the borrower spends that deposit in another bank. The reserves of the lending bank held at the central bank are transferred to the account of the payee in the other bank. This is how all bank transfers work; by using the central bank’s reserve accounts. Instead of describing this process in high schools and economics courses more generally, educational institutions have failed to adequately explain how the monetary system works. The government and a properly educated Board of the Reserve Bank need to address these realities. In regard to my familiarity with this, I worked at the Reserve Bank between September 2001 and October 2002, where I was involved in operations and technical security teams.  I aided the reversal of the RITS system’s previous outsourcing of AlphaServers operating Open VMS previously managed by Austra Clear/SFE. At that time the money that churned between banks via their reserve accounts varied between $9b and $16b daily.

Quantitative Easing

In a financial crisis – such as what occurred during the pandemic – it became evident that excessive exchange settlement reserves were needed. The overused strategy of Central banks globally during the Pandemic was Quantitative Easing. The often-encountered talk of “printing money” is a red herring. Printing money depends on the demand for cash in the private sector – which is normally around 3% of the money supply – and never approaches more than a small portion of the digital money supply. Hard currency demand during the pandemic reached 17%. Digital money is the characteristic form of currency used in operations between the Reserve Bank and the private banking system. Quantitative Easing affects the money supply by increasing the banks’ ESA reserves at the Reserve Bank. This occurs when the Reserve Bank purchases Treasury bonds from the private non-bank sector (e.g. bond dealers, pension funds, asset managers) as well as from the private banks, and these purchases increase the volume of ESA reserves. This also means that more money is circulating in the private sector, which money may be used to pay off bank loans, thereby reducing the likelihood of further borrowings. Technically, increased reserves, while facilitating extensions of interbank transactions, have no direct impact on any credit creation expansion. Precisely what area of the economy Quantitative Easing serves is also of concern, as “employment growth” wasn’t one of them. The inequality of protecting financialised assets amongst the wealthy ruling class financial markets rather than the working class who lost jobs in the millions. As Adam Tooze, in his recent publication, “Shutdown”, observes:

“For the central bank, that meant holding interest rates down. Once again, it came down to financial markets. As far as anyone could figure out, QE worked by driving government bond prices up and yields down. Lower interest rates helped to encourage borrowing for investment and consumption. Lower yields also prompted asset managers to reallocate funds from Treasury markets, where prices were driven up by central bank buying, to riskier assets, like equity and corporate bonds. This boosted corporate borrowing and the stock market. It increased financial net worth and boosted demand. The supportive cooperation between central banks and treasuries in the common struggle against the coronavirus was thus, the central bankers adamantly insisted, no more than an incidental side effect of their frantic and clumsy efforts to manage the economy by way of financial markets. Despite the relentless accumulation of government debt on their balance sheets, the central bankers insisted that this had nothing to do with financing public spending. Their priorities were to manage interest rates and ensure financial stability, which in practice meant underwriting the high-risk investment strategies of hedge funds and other similar investment vehicles. Rather remarkably, they insisted that tending to financial markets was a more legitimate social mission than openly acknowledging the highly functional, indeed essential role they played in backstopping the government budget at a time of crisis.” [pg 149] [1]

When Financial markets become more important to the Reserve Bank than the well-being of the vast majority of Australians, then the bank’s philosophy is served and managed by too many businessmen/women who have a neo-liberal ideology to serve the interests of the few above that of the whole economy. As Curtin espoused, the Reserve bank’s original social mission is to “pursue a policy of low inflation, sustainable output and employment growth”. [2] This mission has evidently fallen away, as a consequence of the type of people chosen to run the Board of the Reserve Bank.

Taxpayer’s money?

Simplified Australian monetary system
Simplified Australian monetary system

Finally, It can be demonstrated simply by viewing the balance sheets (irrespective of the accuracy of dollar amounts) of the entities

  • the Federal Treasury,
  • Reserve Bank,
  • the collective private banks and
  • the collective non-bank private sector

that the deficit of the Federal Treasury is the combined surplus of the Australian economy’s private sector and foreign sector. Deficits are just the government’s way of provisioning the private sector. If a government wishes to pull the spending of an economy back and throttle the growth of an economy, it pursues a surplus for the Treasury, depriving the private sector of funds. John Howard, for example, achieved that when he throttled back the economy to provide the Treasury with a surplus. Consequently, the private sector, desperate for money, borrowed heavily from the Banks. Private debt expanded considerably under John Howard. [See here: The Howard impact or here: Debt, home repossessions portent for Australia poll]. But of course, Treasurer Jim Chalmers should already know this. Taxpayers are not on the hook for a federal government’s treasury deficit because that deficit just boosts taxpayers’ finances. The government’s debt is its problem, not ours, since the Treasury and Reserve Bank issue the dollar (which taxpayers don’t because that is a crime called “counterfeiting” for which it can prosecute us). The currency-issuing government can pay their debts at any time it chooses by simply issuing the appropriate quantity of currency to cover the debts. Admittedly, the wedging by political opponents and the Murdoch media would require of this government political courage, not financial inability.

Currency Issuing

Many members of the public believe that the issuance of Australian currency is the domain of the taxpayer. Aside from this being the description of the crime of counterfeiting (for which the Australian government would jail any offender), the Reserve Bank definitively sees the issuance of currency as its role. Despite the widely accepted myth about the existence of “taxpayer’s money“, the taxpayer is not an issuer of money, but rather is a user of it. The distinction between a money issuer and a money user is critical to the public understanding of monetary reality. The issuer of a sovereign currency is not operationally constrained and cannot be forced into default in its own currency. However, non-sovereign monetary currency issued or pegged to a foreign-issued currency such as we find within the Eurozone or for the example of Sri Lanka’s debts held in a foreign currency can, of course, lead to default. Australia, like Japan, the U.S., New Zealand and many others, are monetarily sovereign economies with no significant foreign debt and only face the constraints inherent in resource depletion and inflation. Users of Currency are everyone else, including taxpayers, municipalities, and the States and they certainly face monetary constraints. They must earn, budget and use the limited money they can acquire through business, taxation and exchange. Monetary issuers are not so constrained.

Knowledge is power

The problem is, if submissions for a public review of the functions of the Reserve Bank are to be effective, it is incumbent on the reviewers to have a realistic appreciation of how the banking system operates and the Reserve Bank’s role and function in Australia’s financial system. Holding to the public franchise myth, the NAIRU myth, and the Taxpayer funds myth, as many in the media (and possibly members of the Bank Board), will limit the usefulness of any submissions. Providing faulty recommendations to politicians who frequently use the analogy of a household budget to describe how fiat economies work is a recipe for disaster and subsequent legislative policies that will hamper the workings of the Reserve Bank to aid post-pandemic financial recovery. So we need governors and heads of departments within the RBA who know and understand inflationary causes, recognise the differences between supply vs demand causation and know that raising interest rates is an over-zealous intervention that cures symptoms by killing the patient.

Footnotes:

[1] Tooze, A. (2021). “Shutdown: How Covid Shook the World’s Economy.” Penguin Books Ltd. [pg 149]
[2] Edwards, J. K. (2011). Curtin’s Gift: Reinterpreting Australia’s greatest prime minister. Allen & Unwin [pg 142]

Filed Under: Budget

RBA Review part 1

December 4, 2022 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

In September 2022, the Reserve Bank of Australia was opened to public assessment.  The submissions were to be part of a review announced by Treasurer Jim Chalmers in July. What follows is largely verbatim from my submission at the end of October.  This will be published along with other reviews on the RBA review website in the week of December 5th. The Review Panel – comprising Renée Fry‑McKibbin, Carolyn Wilkins and Gordon de Brouwer- assesses those submissions. Certain aspects of my original review used in-house vernacular, presuming a specific internal bank knowledge. I have added further explanations of those concepts to facilitate a better understanding of this two-part series. Beyond these additional explanations, this is essentially the content of my submission. There are more embedded links than initially provided to the RBA to aid your further exploration.

======

Dear Minister Chalmers,

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this review of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Themes

This submission covers Monetary policy frameworks such as adherence to the NAIRU and neoclassical “gold standard” mentality over that of monetary sovereign fiat economies. It covers RBA and Government communications about the Finance Franchise myths on Banking, in general. It is critical of the Board composition based on bias in inappropriate neoclassical education and the selection of business representatives instead of economists trained in the issues of fiat economies. Finally, it reviews the Interaction of monetary and fiscal policy with respect to RBA’s performance in applying monetary policy where fiscal policy is more appropriate. As a former employee of the Reserve Bank, I have some knowledge of the inner workings of the Reserve Bank. I understand the review of the Reserve Bank of Australia is underway to improve monetary policy and its success at realising its goals, governance by the Board, culture, leadership, and recruitment practices. Such a broad range of objectives has yet to be approached since the smaller incidental 1981 Campbell inquiry and before that, presumably at its inception in 1960.

Curtin

Over the last century, Australia’s Central Bank and economy have undergone many changes. In the previous World War, the Curtin Government asserted Commonwealth power over banking, which led to Ben Chifley’s later decision to legislate to nationalise the banks, effectively asserting Commonwealth control over money and credit as per the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1945. However, such nationalisation was later defeated in 1949, as the book “Curtin’s Gift” by John Edwards says on Pg 141. “Though the postwar Menzies Government amended Chifley’s central banking legislation to reintroduce a board, the Commonwealth’s last-resort power to direct the bank was retained in the legislation and remains today. The Commonwealth Treasurer has conferred on the bank an independent authority to make monetary policy, but it is a conditional independence to pursue a policy of low inflation, sustainable output and employment growth.” Curtin had also argued for two other changes,

  1. Commit to a full employment policy to improve living standards and raise national development.
  2. a floating exchange rate to free Australia from the fixed exchange rate with the British pound

Ben Chifley implemented the Full employment policy following Curtin’s full employment paper being submitted to Cabinet in March 1945. Until the rise of Neoliberalism in the 1970s, unemployment would remain dominantly at 2% (notably without substantial inflation).

Unemployment rate and NAIRU

This leads to the Reserve Bank’s first failure, which is its commitment to the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU). The RBA’s adherence to the economic self-deception espoused by the Phillips Curve model falsely supposes a trade-offbetween inflation and unemployment exists. That trade-off was initially set at 6% unemployment, then later 5%, then for some 4% despite the evidence of Australian history. The NAIRU is a systematically flawed perspective on inflation generated by a nation’s economy approaching full employment that should have died in Australia in the 1950s. Specifically, after Ben Chifley’s success with the Full Employment policy in Australia demonstrated for 25 years, full employment did not accompany rampaging inflation. Menzies nearly lost an election when unemployment, rose to 53,000 people or 3% at the end of 1960. It did, although, settle back to 2%. Australia abandoned Full Employment policies in the early 1970s.  This led to increased unemployment and significantly growing inflation over the next decade. Supposedly this use of the Phillips curve fell out of favour after the great stagflation of the 1970s. Instead, this zombie economic perspective has been raised from the dead, evidenced in 2022 with the prospect of the RBA using that justification for raising interest rates. All purportedly to manage a disquiet of ABS’s unemployment measure at 3.5%. Notably for a working labour force over three times larger than that experienced by Menzies in 1961. Albanese’s claim in 2022 of the Job Summit was to seek a “Full Employment Summit” but baulked at the solution of the Curtin Government. Unfortunately, the neo-liberals of the political Party and the Bank adheres to the conservative myth of the NAIRU.

Instead of NAIRU, we should consider NAIBER – as a better alternative perspective, especially as the Bank incorrectly suggests we are already “fully employed”. [See Prof Mitchell’s analysis: Never trust a NAIRU estimate] Beyond Prof Mitchell’s frequent analysis of the NAIBER, Prof Steven Hail’s book “Economics for Sustainable Prosperity” explains it on page 242.

“NAIBER stands for the ‘Non-Accelerating Inflation Buffer Employment Ratio’. The buffer employment ratio replaces the unemployment rate with the ratio of workers in the job guarantee scheme relative to the total available labour force. This is the replacement of our existing buffer stock of the involuntarily unemployed and underemployed with an employed buffer stock of workers within a public-sector job guarantee. The scheme would be a shock absorber for the economy— expanding to employ workers when they have been shed from the private sector during a downturn, and contracting automatically as the private sector absorbs labour from the job guarantee scheme in an upturn. Ecological modern monetary theorists have referred to an ecologically sustainable NAIBER, or ESNAIBER, in the context of a job guarantee as an element in a transition to an ecologically steady-state economy, given the ecological constraints referred to above.“

Pandemic Unemployment measures to Sep 2022
Pandemic Unemployment measures to Sep 2022

The goal of “full employment” has been achieved if you conclude ABS measures domestic unemployment, which, as you can see from the graphs and my articles covering what should have resulted from the Job Summit [my article and graphs: Stagnating Summit’s Shortfalls]. This is why “what gets measured” is essential. I will not go into detail about the shortcomings of the ABS statistics as they are probably already well known, and if not, the article aforementioned herein, should inform you. Raising interest rates as a strategy to deal with inflations is problematic at best. The link between spending and interest rates is unreliable and unpredictable. Interest rates affect both supply and demand. Economic modelling of “supply and demand” is only relevant to highly atomised markets with many participants, like the primary sector. Secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy follow different models. Changes in interest rates can have a reverse effect on inflation. Higher interest rates only affect people with variable interest rate debts. They don’t affect fixed interest rate debt and people with no immediate financial obligation. Higher interest rates increase the income of creditors and redistribute income to the wealthier, rentier class, exacerbating inequality. Fourth, higher interest rates reduce the incentive to undertake debt and may cause “distress borrowing” to service existing debt or keep businesses afloat. The resulting Ponzi balance sheets do a disservice to the economy, and all of the above, risk yet another recession. The government should be applying fiscal, not monetary, policy to these issues rather than letting the Reserve Bank’s adherence to a disproven NAIRU theory collapse the economy into greater inequality.

FIAT economy

Paul Keating’s floating of the Australian currency in 1983 meant Australia entered a new economic space. We became a monetarily sovereign, fiat economy no longer tied to another currency or a gold standard (which even America had abandoned with the collapse of the Brenton Wood decisions in 1971). The implications of which even the Bank of England acknowledges even if neither our government’s political rhetoric nor Reserve Bank acknowledge. [Bank of England video: Money in the modern economy: an introduction – Quarterly Bulletin] Instead of shifting into this new space and engaging with this new paradigm of fiat economies, the neoclassical economic conversation stayed with the decades-old “gold standard” economics model. Still, neoclassical economics guides the decisions of the Reserve Bank’s mission to “pursue a policy of low inflation, sustainable output and employment growth.” [“Curtin’s Gift” by John Edwards pg 142] Problematically, even Board members of the Reserve Bank need to understand the basics of a modern monetary system. [Prof William Mitchell: The RBA has no credibility and the governor and board should resign]. The Reserve Bank’s role as the currency issuer for the government has been misunderstood by business board appointees blinded by the tunnel vision of their experience as currency users in the business community. Most of the Board are business people (five in number), three are neoclassical economists (Dr Lowe, Michele Bullock, & Ian Harper), and Dr Steven Kennedy is economics adjacent given his Doctorate was in the Economic Determinants of Health, which is not precisely about the Banking systems. None of the Board has any formal training in the economics of fiat economies or Modern Monetary economies. However, that isn’t to say their experience on the Board has yet to give them insight. Some suggest the RBA is best served with Board members selected based on expertise in modern monetary fiat economics rather than as political appointees because of their relationships with former Prime ministers. To this day, neoclassical economics still guides the decisions of the Reserve Bank’s mission to pursue a policy of “low inflation, sustainable output and employment growth” but has universally failed to achieve what Curtin & Chifley (and even Menzies) did for nearly three decades. Banking is widely misunderstood as a heavily regulated franchise industry acting as an intermediary between scarce private capital and borrowers. Modern finance is relatively scarce, and depositors are the source of money supplied to borrowers. [Cornell Law School paper: “The Finance Franchise”].

=======

My letter to the RBA continued to explore more of the myths believed by the public about money and banking.   The letter reviewed the recent quantitative easing while serving the needs of the highly financed wealthy. It did sadly little for the well-being of the larger Australian public. All these are available in Rba Review part Two.

Filed Under: Budget

RBA review submission

October 31, 2022 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

In July, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced an independent review of the Reserve Bank of Australia, and in September, the Bank Review panel released Issues Papers and calls for Public Submissions.  The Review Panel – comprising Renée Fry‑McKibbin, Carolyn Wilkins and Gordon de Brouwer. As I said to the panel, I have written it as though writing to Treasurer Jim Chalmers. The closing date was the 31st of October, and because this will make for a long article, I will simply say, what follows, is my submission.

======

Dear Minister Chalmers,

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this review of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Themes

This submission covers Monetary policy frameworks such as adherence to the NAIRU and neoclassical “gold standard” mentality over that of monetary sovereign fiat economies. It covers RBA and Government communications about the Finance Franchise myths on Banking, in general. It is critical of the Board composition based on bias in inappropriate neoclassical education and the selection of business representatives instead of economists trained in the issues of fiat economies. Finally, it reviews the Interaction of monetary and fiscal policy with respect to RBA’s performance in applying monetary policy where fiscal policy is more appropriate. As a former employee of the Reserve Bank, I have some knowledge of the inner workings of the Reserve Bank.

I understand the review of the Reserve Bank of Australia is underway to improve monetary policy and its success at realising its goals, governance by the Board, culture, leadership, and recruitment practices. Such a broad range of objectives has yet to be approached since the smaller incidental 1981 Campbell inquiry and before that, presumably at its inception in 1960.

Curtin

Over the last century, Australia’s Central Bank and economy have undergone many changes. In the previous World War, the Curtin Government asserted Commonwealth power over banking, which led to Ben Chifley’s later decision to legislate to nationalise the banks, effectively asserting Commonwealth control over money and credit as per the Commonwealth Bank Act of 1945. However, such nationalisation was later defeated in 1949, as the book “Curtin’s Gift” by John Edwards says on Pg 141.

“Though the postwar Menzies Government amended Chifley’s central banking legislation to reintroduce a board, the Commonwealth’s last-resort power to direct the bank was retained in the legislation and remains today. The Commonwealth Treasurer has conferred on the bank an independent authority to make monetary policy, but it is a conditional independence to pursue a policy of low inflation, sustainable output and employment growth.”

Curtin had also argued for two other changes,

1. Commit to a full employment policy to improve living standards and raise national development.

2. a floating exchange rate to free Australia from the fixed exchange rate with the British pound

Ben Chifley implemented the Full employment policy following Curtin’s full employment paper being submitted to Cabinet in March 1945. Until the rise of Neoliberalism in the 1970s, unemployment would remain dominately at 2% (notably without substantial inflation).

Unemployment rate and NAIRU

This leads to the Reserve Bank’s first failure, which is its commitment to the NAIRU. Interestingly Albanese’s claim of the Job Summit was to seek a “Full Employment Summit”. But unfortunately, the neo-liberals of both the political Party and the Bank adhere to the conservative myth of the NAIRU. Instead of a NABIER – as a better alternative perspective, the Bank incorrectly suggests we are already “fully employed”. [See Prof Mitchell’s analysis: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=44910 ] A goal that has been achieved if you conclude ABS measures domestic unemployment, which, as you can see from the graphs and my articles covering what should have resulted from the Job Summit [my article & graphs: https://theaimn.com/stagnating-summits-shortfalls/]. This is why “what gets measured” is essential. I will not go into detail about the shortcomings of the ABS statistics as they are probably already well known, and if not, the article aforementioned herein, should inform you.
Raising interest rates as a strategy to deal with inflations is problematic at best. The link between spending and interest rates is unreliable and unpredictable. Interest rates affect both supply and demand. Economic modelling of “supply and demand” is only relevant to highly atomised markets with many participants, like the primary sector. Secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy follow different models. Changes in interest rates can have a reverse effect on inflation. Higher interest rates only affect people with variable interest rate debts. They don’t affect fixed interest rate debt and people with no immediate financial obligation. Higher interest rates increase the income of creditors and redistribute income to the wealthier, rentier class, exacerbating inequality. Fourth, higher interest rates reduce the incentive to undertake debt and may cause “distress borrowing” to service existing debt or keep businesses afloat. The resulting Ponzi balance sheets do a disservice to the economy, and all of the above, risk yet another recession. The government should be applying fiscal, not monetary, policy to these issues rather than letting the Reserve Bank’s adherence to a disproven NAIRU theory collapse the economy into greater inequality.

FIAT economy

Paul Keating’s floating of the Australian currency in 1983 meant Australia entered a new economic space. We became a monetarily sovereign, fiat economy no longer tied to another currency or a gold standard (which even America had abandoned with the collapse of the Brenton Wood decisions in 1971). The implications of which even the Bank of England acknowledges even if neither our government’s political rhetoric nor Reserve Bank acknowledge.  [Bank of England video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTE32hiWdk]

Instead of shifting into this new space and engaging with this new paradigm of fiat economies, the neoclassical economic conversation stayed with the decades-old “gold standard” economics model. Still, neoclassical economics guides the decisions of the Reserve Bank’s mission to “pursue a policy of low inflation, sustainable output and employment growth.” [“Curtin’s Gift” by John Edwards pg 142]

Problematically, even Board members of the Reserve Bank need to understand the basics of a modern monetary system. [Prof William Mitchell: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=49696] The Reserve Bank’s role as the currency issuer for the government has been misunderstood by business board appointees blinded by the tunnel vision of their experience as currency users in the business community.

Most of the Board are business people (five in number), three are neoclassical economists (Dr Lowe, Michele Bullock, & Ian Harper), and Dr Steven Kennedy is economics adjacent given his Doctorate was in the Economic Determinants of Health, which is not precisely about the Banking systems. None of the Board has any formal training in the economics of fiat economies or Modern Monetary economies, although that isn’t to say their experience on the Board has yet to give them insight. Some suggest the RBA is best served with Board members selected based on expertise in modern monetary fiat economics rather than as political appointees because of their relationships with former Prime ministers.

To this day, neoclassical economics still guides the decisions of the Reserve Bank’s mission to pursue a policy of “low inflation, sustainable output and employment growth” but has universally failed to achieve what Curtin & Chifley (and even Menzies) did for nearly three decades.

Banking is widely misunderstood as a heavily regulated franchise industry acting as an intermediary between scarce private capital and borrowers. Modern finance is relatively scarce, and depositors are the source of money supplied to borrowers. [Cornell Law School paper: “The Finance Franchise” https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2660&context=facpub]

Misperceptions.

This is among many common public and media misrepresentations of the banking system. In these areas, it should be incumbent upon the government to educate the public through public broadcasting so that the expectations upon the Reserve Bank are properly evaluated. These myths include:

  • Banks can only lend out money they have from depositors.
  • Credit is an extension of a money multiplier based on deposit reserves.
  • Quantitative Easing is printing free finance into the money supply.
  • Federal Treasury deficits are a liability to taxpayers.

At a Keystroke.

Money in Australia’s economy has two sources. First, that which the Government Treasury supplies through its fiscal agent, the Reserve Bank. In short, that money is spent into existence by the Federal Government. This money is called “Vertical” money, which exists as an Exchange Settlement Account between the Reserve Bank and the Private banks. As the public is not a joint holder of that account, it is not available for lending to the public. Its only purpose is for interbank transactions.

Secondly, a larger pool of credit via lending is generated “ex nihilo” in the economy through private banking, referred to as “horizontal” money. [Also, the Bank of England: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw] When banks lend, they create deposit IOUs within that bank. Bank’s customer deposits are their liability, and the loan is their asset created by keystrokes. Deposits are fundamentally an IOU from the bank. Similarly, when a bank makes a loan, they generate an IOU deposit for the lender at that bank. The complementary asset for the bank is the loan. Banks create money for borrowers and profit (the interest) for themselves.

Unlike the banking franchise myth, deposits or reserves do not create or limit loans. The perpetuation of this myth in public debate and political pronouncements does a disservice to the public good.

Deposits/Reserves relevancy

Credit creation is simply about a bank finding a credit-worthy customer with whom it can create a digital deposit as an account with that bank with the expectation of future interest payments. The loan to the borrower becomes a bank asset, with an accompanying liability created by a computer entry, which generates the deposit for the borrower. None of the aforementioned Bank reserves is touched, and neither are deposits. The exchange settlement Account reserves are used only when the borrower spends that deposit in another bank. The reserves held at the Central Bank of the lending bank are transferred to the account of the person being paid in the other bank. This is how all bank transfers work; by using the central bank’s reserve accounts.

Instead of adequately describing this in High School and economics education, the government needs to explain how the monetary system works adequately. The government and a properly educated Board of the Reserve Bank need to address these realities.

Regarding my familiarity with this, I worked at the Reserve Bank between September 2001 and October 2002, where I worked on both the operations and technical security teams at the Reserve Bank. In that capacity, I aided reversing the RITS system’s previous outsourcing of AlphaServers operating OpenVMS, previously managed by AustraClear/SFE. Back then, the money churned between banks via their reserve accounts oscillated between $9 to $16 billion daily. The monitoring of that transfer between private bank accounts is the RITS system at the Reserve bank running on an Alpha-VMS mainframe that monitors all account exchanges between banks, which is the system I helped bring back in-house.

Quantitative Easing

In a financial crisis – such as the Pandemic – excessive needs for Exchange Settlement Reserves become evident. The overused strategy of Central banks globally during the Pandemic has been Quantitative Easing. Despite the talk of “printing money”, that is a red herring. Printing money depends on the demand for cash in the private sector – generally around 3% – and never reaches a point where it even approaches a small portion of the digital money supply. Hard currency demand during the Pandemic reached 17%. Digital money is the normality between the Reserve Bank and the private banking systems.

Quantitative Easing affects the money supply by increasing the banks’ ESA reserves at the Reserve Bank. This is done by the Reserve Bank repurchasing Treasury bonds from the private non-bank sector (i.e. pension funds & asset managers) and the private banks. The purchases from the private banking sector rise in digital money extend the ESA reserves. Many private sales of Government Bonds mean more money is circulating in the private sector that may be used to pay off bank loans, reducing the likelihood of borrowings. Technically, increased reserves, while facilitating extensions of interbank transactions, have no direct impact on any credit creation expansion.
Precisely what area of the economy Quantitative Easing serves is also of concern, as “employment growth” wasn’t one of them. The inequality of protecting financialised assets amongst the wealthy ruling class financial markets rather than the working class who lost jobs in the millions. As Adam Tooze, in his recent publication, “Shutdown”, observes

“For the central bank, that meant holding interest rates down. Once again, it came down to financial markets. As far as anyone could figure out, QE worked by driving government bond prices up and yields down. Lower interest rates helped to encourage borrowing for investment and consumption. Lower yields also prompted asset managers to reallocate funds from Treasury markets, where prices were driven up by central bank buying, to riskier assets, like equity and corporate bonds. This boosted corporate borrowing and the stock market. It increased financial net worth and boosted demand.

The supportive cooperation between central banks and treasuries in the common struggle against the coronavirus was thus, the central bankers adamantly insisted, no more than an incidental side effect of their frantic and clumsy efforts to manage the economy by way of financial markets. Despite the relentless accumulation of government debt on their balance sheets, the central bankers insisted that this had nothing to do with financing public spending. Their priorities were to manage interest rates and ensure financial stability, which in practice meant underwriting the high-risk investment strategies of hedge funds and other similar investment vehicles. Rather remarkably, they insisted that tending to financial markets was a more legitimate social mission than openly acknowledging the highly functional, indeed essential role they played in backstopping the government budget at a time of crisis.” [pg 149]

When Financial markets become more important to the Reserve Bank than the well-being of the vast majority of Australians, then the bank’s philosophy is served and managed by too many businessmen & women with a neoliberal ideology to serve the interests of the few above that of the whole economy. As Curtin espoused, the Reserve bank’s original social mission is to “pursue a policy of low inflation, sustainable output and employment growth”. This mission has evidently fallen, by the way, because of the people chosen to run the Board of the Reserve Bank.

Taxpayer’s money?

Simplified Australian monetary system
Simplified Australian monetary system

Finally, It can be demonstrated simply by viewing the balance sheets (irrespective of the accuracy of dollar amounts) of the entities known as

  • the Treasury,
  • Reserve Bank,
  • the collective private banks and
  • the collective non-bank private sector

that the federal deficit of the Treasury is the surplus of the Australian economy’s private (and foreign) sector. Deficits are just the government’s way of provisioning the private sector. If a government wishes to pull the spending of an economy back and throttle the growth of an economy, it pursues a surplus for the Treasury, depriving the private sector of funds. John Howard, for example, achieved that when he throttled back the economy to provide the Treasury with a surplus. Consequently, the private sector, desperate for money, borrowed heavily from the Banks. Private debt expanded considerably under John Howard. [See here: https://insidestory.org.au/the-howard-impact/] [or here https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-australia-politics-idUKSYD21821020070508] But of course Mr Chalmers, you should already know this.

Taxpayers are not on the hook for a government’s treasury deficit as that deficit just boosted taxpayers’ finances. The government’s debt is your problem, not ours, since the Treasury and Reserve Bank issue the dollar (which taxpayers don’t because that is a crime called “counterfeiting” with which you would charge us). The currency-issuing government can pay their debts off any time they choose by issuing the dollars to cover them. Admittedly the wedging by political opponents and the Murdoch media would require of this government political courage, not financial inability.

Knowledge is power

The problem is, if submissions for a public review of the functions of the Reserve Bank are to be effective, it is incumbent on the reviewers to have a realistic appreciation of how the banking system works and the Reserve Bank’s role in our financial system. Holding to the public franchise myth, the NAIRU myth, and the Taxpayer funds myth, as many in the media (and possibly members of the Bank Board), will limit the usefulness of any submissions. Providing faulty recommendations to politicians who frequently use the analogy of a household budget to describe how fiat economies work is a recipe for disaster and subsequent legislative policies that will hamper the workings of the Reserve Bank to aid post-pandemic financial recovery.

So we need governors and heads of departments within the RBA who know and understand inflationary causes, recognise the differences between supply vs demand causation and know that raising interest rates is an over-zealous intervention that cures symptoms by killing the patient.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter for your review.

Yours sincerely,

John Haly.
(Auswakeup Media)

[Correction: An earlier version of this article was not “absolutely pedantic accurate” as Inflation from 1945 to 1970 was so small compared to what followed, as to be negligible, but as it wasn’t nonexistent the phrase at the end of the section on Curtin has had the word “substantial” added.]

Filed Under: Budget, Employment Tagged With: fiscal policy, franchise, job summit, monetary policy, RBR, taxpayers

Stagnating Summit’s Shortfalls

September 1, 2022 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Labor is seeking to have business and unions cooperate in spurring wages forwards. This is despite decades of companies benefitting from increased productivity gains that have not resulted in increased wages for workers. This begs the question, what does Anthony Albanese think will improve wages, if productivity gains haven’t been doing that? More Visas, better skills training and fairer wage bargaining are considerations, but even Ross Gittins worries we won’t get it all from Labor’s Job Summit.

Strong Economy?

Productivity is booming so why aren't wages?
Productivity is booming, so why aren’t wages?

Wage stagnation coupled with the rabid supply-side inflation emanating from the war in Ukraine and the pandemic has meant real wages are falling, and solutions are thin on the ground. The economic inheritance left to the Labor party was described by the outgoing Liberal Party Prime minister as “strong”, despite:

  • rising inflation,
  • unrevealed reports about the pending rising cost of living issues,
  • rising variants of Covid-19 worse than in previous years,
  • impending tax rises for most Australians and $243B in tax cuts for the wealthy,
  • diminished public service to handle the mixed successes and failures of the pandemic.
  • Hiding a damning environmental report indicating the environment was in unsustainable decline.

So the Job summit has potential, but only if we correctly measure Australia’s problems. To quote my accountant father’s frequent refrain: “What gets measured, gets managed” conversely, “if you’re not measuring it correctly, you will not manage it appropriately”.

The only significant “success” the Liberals could point to was, the lowest unemployment figures from the ABS we have seen in decades.

“But while Labor will focus on wages and inflation, Mr Morrison will hope two sets of employment data due between now and election day – April 14 and May 19 – deliver him the lowest jobless rate since 1974”, reported by the Financial Review in April.

International vs Domestic

On the surface, there is no word of a lie that ABS has reported lower unemployment figures since. The question is, are the ABS figures worth the paper they are written on (or perhaps, in this day and age – worth the hosting cost of the website they are published on)? ABS estimates its unemployment figures based on the ILO standards for a methodology of measurement that are internationally accepted to facilitate international comparative analysis. 

For that purpose, each nation must conform to a standard everyone follows. The standard facilitates a common and verifiable point of comparison. For example, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate decreased to 3.5% in July 2022. In England, the Office of National Statistics UK unemployment rate was estimated at 3.8%. Whereas in Australia, it decreased to 3.4%, according to the ABS. Therefore we can conclude that Australia is doing better than our fellow western allies in the USA and UK. However, we need to ask whether, despite the comparative issue, do any of these numbers reflect the actual unemployment status inside the nation? It turns out the methodology of measurement that distinguished between international and domestic measures excludes hundreds of thousands of people who struggle with real unemployment inside each country. 

As an Australian writer, I wish to focus on why it is the ABS does not, and certainly not in decades, measure real domestic unemployment in Australia. The fact that both media and political pundits represent that the ABS’s figures convey the domestic/internal measure of unemployment, as opposed to an internationally competitive figure, does the public a disservice and misrepresents the truth.

ABS a small subset of every other unemployment measure
ABS a small subset of every other unemployment measure

To a limited extent, the public is not unfamiliar with the ABS’s methodology’s shortcomings. One has only to look to any social media posting about unemployment and find someone who angrily points out that “people are ‘employed’ if they work one hour a week”. The problem with this “shortcoming” is that it is easy and unnuanced to understand for the statistically illiterate. It is not entirely accurate or as significant as people think. I have previously dealt with the “one hour a week” misrepresentation in my article “Unemployment numbers likely worse than projected”, so I don’t want to rehash that. Instead, there is also the significance of the impact compared with people who have a “job attachment”, to use ABS’s terminology, but – because of their uncertain status in the GIG economy – have zero work and pay (90,600 in July – see graph). It isn’t folks who get a few hours on a shift once a month but people who get nothing and are still registered as “employed” by the ABS because of their “job attachment”. During the pandemic, the numbers in this class were significant (higher than one million – see graph), but they have dropped to the level of people working the equivalent of a single shift for a month. 

Zero to nine hours of work with job Attachments all still "employed"
Zero to nine hours of work with job Attachments all still “employed”

For example, in July 2022, there were only 54,900 people who worked between 1 and 9hrs in a month as a standard work arrangement. In addition, 66,200 worked similar hours because there was either “no work, not enough work, or stood down”. On top of that, in July, another 41,600 people had their working hours reduced to as few as 1-9hrs for “other” reasons that did not involve any form of leave (annual or otherwise), sickness, injury, maternity, plant breakdown or bad weather. These are all accordingly counted as “employed” by the ABS. Considering them as “employed” is technically accurate, although significantly underemployed. One certainly can’t be earning a living on less than nine hours of work a month.

Irrespective of where you put your cutoff point on working hours for registering someone as unemployed (and surprisingly zero, isn’t it), numerous other exclusions preclude people from being counted as unemployed. This fails the “so-called pub test”. I have listed these in my article “Frydenberg’s Maths problem”. The result is that, even if you added people who had a “job attachments” – but zero hours of work – the ABS estimate is smaller than, people receiving Job Seeker (let alone adding Youth Allowance – 15 to 22yrs – into the equation). There was a three-month period last year when that wasn’t true, which tells you that not all unemployed people register for JobSeeker. (Explained in “Josh’s Jobless Jargon”).

Real Domestic Unemployment

The real job gap for the under & unemployed vs job vacancies
The real job gap for the under & unemployed vs job vacancies

These statistical anomalies leave Roy Morgan’s estimate as the best likely accurate reflection of domestic unemployment in Australia at 8.5% (or 1.2 million people). But of course, the Job Summit is unlikely to admit real unemployment is more than twice what ABS’s international comparative measurement standard, claims. As such, the Job Summit only acknowledges a subset of the genuinely unemployed, as the problem area. In that case, it is no wonder they are grooming us to believe that Job vacancies are rising to the point where there are close enough to absorb most of the unemployed. One supposes you have already read these “excited” claims in the media. In that case, the unacknowledged aspect is that they’re admitting there have never been enough jobs previously to absorb the subset of the unemployed that ABS claims. This renders all the previous admonitions to the unemployed to “just get a job”, pretty hollow.

Job vacancy breakdowns into industry & job type according to ABS & Dept of Emp'
Job vacancy breakdowns into industry & job type according to ABS & Dept of Emp’

That raises two questions 

1. What is the actual gap between job vacancies and the under and unemployed

2. How compatible are the job vacancies with the skills available in the community for the unemployed to be absorbed?

Zooming in on the industries with job vacancies
Zooming in on the industries with job vacancies

Now there are two measures of vacancies available. The Department of Employment’s internet vacancy index (IVI), and ABS’s quarterly survey of vacancies claimed by businesses. The IVI was more significant in previous decades than the ABS’s claim (see Roy Morgan graph). This discrepancy has changed in recent years, which I explained in “Vacant Claimants”. The fact is that even taking the largest count, the gap between job vacancies and Roy Morgan’s realistic unemployed figures is enormous. The opportunities for people with limited skills (lacking expensive university education) are just as limited now as when I wrote “The myth of Jobs Growth”. As you can see from the graph of divisions of jobs and industries where vacancies exist, most of them are still only available for the professional/educated market.

Farmer’s Plight

Instead, we still focus on the smallest unskilled end of employment opportunities, as depicted by the article this week, “Nobody wants to work: Fruit left to rot leaves, farmers feeling sour” page 8 of Tuesday’s (30th Aug) SMH. I long ago addressed this in “Low hanging Fruit”. Alternatively, the government could develop a comprehensive agricultural industry labour market policy. This policy should include government means-tested subsidisation of core wages at an adequate level, paying members of the agricultural workforce, with less profitable (but still essential) farmers providing monetary incentives to promote performance. This should include government coordination with Tafes and Universities and agricultural employers to provide a clear career path spanning entry-level agricultural roles to agriculture science and management qualifications at degree and post-grad levels. The package should include the government providing business coaching and mentoring to agricultural employers to build their capacity to be “employers of choice”. Adding offerings such as a cafeteria-style remuneration package of transport, accommodation, meals, training, on-the-job components of vocational credentialing and performance-based pay.

The contemporary issue, as usual, is poor pay and conditions, which the Job Summit needs to handle. The solution on offer is more migrants who will work for a pittance. This is in the face of over a million people unemployed in Australia and over another million underemployed. This statement is largely true of any month in the previous decade, with minor exceptions for underemployment before 2017 when it fell as low as 917,000.

Full Employment Summit?

The long-term perspective on employment and unemplyment
The long-term perspective on employment and unemployment

Interestingly Albanese’s claim of the Job Summit was to seek a “Full Employment Summit”. But unfortunately, the neo-liberals adhere to the conservative myth of the NAIRU instead of a NABIER, which suggests we are already “fully employed”. A goal that has been achieved if you conclude ABS measures domestic unemployment. This is why “what gets measured” is essential. But, of course, if you want more realistic “full employment” policies, look at that instigated by the Curtin Government from 1945 to 1974. During which unemployment was dominantly measured at 2%. Then we would have the beginnings of a proven policy that survived decades until the introduction of neo-liberal policies under Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. For an informative reading on that, get a hold of Elizabeth Humphrey’s 2020 book, “How Labour Built Neoliberalism”.

The framework of a Federal Jobs Guarantee and what it could achieve for wages and workers has evolved from Curtin’s conception to a far more robust framework than that of the 1940s. Dr Steven Hail’s paper on a Job Guarantee is among the architects of alternatives. However, given that 30% of the attendees of the Job Summit are from the Business community and 30% from Unions, I very much expect such solutions will not even get a hearing in a barely two-day conference. 

Given the minor target nature of political reforms exhibited by Labor to date where:

  • they raise the minimum wage but not Jobseeker, 
  • send one family of refugees home but don’t address the rest, 
  • talk about addressing climate change but allow further gas mining,
  • limit debt-related deductions for multinationals but refuses to concede an end to stage three tax cuts, 

 it is evident that state capture by industry donors is still a problem. 

Hence we should expect far more modest recommendations from the Job Summit, which will involve more migrants, claims about needing even more productivity and further capitulation to vested business interests.

Real solutions

I don’t doubt that concessions will be generated from the Job Summit, but they will be bandages rather than solutions. But what would serious reform of the jobs market include?

1. Restoration and widening the scope of the public service/taxation/health/education/industrial relations departments.

2. Reviewing agricultural policy that subsidises agricultural employment – subject to annual review of employee conditions – to maintain viable, essential food security and attract Australians to farms. (As outlined above).

3. Nationalising private employment agencies and implementing ambitious public sector-driven active labour market programs comparable to what exists in Scandinavia.

4. An end to TAFE & university education fees to facilitate a more highly educated public that can reduce the growing professional job vacancies.

5. Establishment of technically based career paths from entry-level positions to professional and senior executive roles.

6. A return to centralised wage-fixing such as what existed in the 1970s.

7. A decrease in the exploitation of migrant labour by increasing random fair work inspections of workplaces backed by substantial legal penalties.

8. Expansion of cadetships and apprenticeships, and graduate programs in public service departments. 

9. End costly Public Private Partnerships infrastructure projects to staff public sector expertise for infrastructure development fully.

10. A Federal Job Guarantee linked to career paths. 

11. Implementing a Green New Deal where energy and transport infrastructure is wholly returned to the public sector.

I am confident I can predict none of these, especially the re-conceptions of the public sector, will come out of this week’s end Jobs Summit. The reason is necessary, and fair reform isn’t on the agenda. Besides this, the way they measure Australia’s unemployment and the issues and focus on what job vacancies matter is misdirected.

Filed Under: Employment

Partying in 2022

May 18, 2022 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

“Climate change takes centre stage in Australia’s election” was proclaimed in 2019, but then the party of Climate scepticism took the stage. The polls failed to predict the election outcome on the 18th of May 2019, and “climate” wasn’t on the agenda. Even more of a climate denialist than Tony Abbott, denialist Scott Morrison held all the Aces and dealt Bill Shorten a knockout blow few saw coming.  

Here we are in 2022. The French are casting an eye across the Indian Ocean, where once submarines they might have manufactured were to travel to their final destination in Australia. France 24 proclaims, “Australia’s federal election: Climate change becomes top concern for voters“. They noted, “The environmental crisis is high on voters’ minds, and smaller parties and independents are gaining momentum by riding a wave of disillusionment over the conservative coalition’s lack of climate action.” But, after suggesting minor parties succeeding and hung parliaments are the future of the Australian parliament, one must wonder, do these minor parties really have the policies that could shake the foundations of our nation?

Single issue agendas

It is easy to find articles that review how the major parties will address Climate change. But perhaps less so conspicuous is the position of all the parties. But pick an issue that you rate as necessary, such as Queer Rights, and you can find a particular interest group ready to “dish the dirt” on your favourite issue. So is there someone in your circle of associates prepared to do it on various topics? If you are looking for that someone, you have come to the right article and the correct author.

Multiple Parties and Issues

The Political Compass reading of Australian political positioning in 2022
The Political Compass reading of Australian political positioning in 2022

Think again, though, if you thought one should give any credibility to the ABC’s vote compass. I have previously addressed the errors of the ABC tunnel vision in my “Voting values” article. I refer to the international perspective from “The Political Compass“, which does it for every national election in western democracies. They represent their analysis of the classic Right-left / authoritarian-progressive abscissa and ordinate graph. Their results for Australia in 2022 came out recently. They placed the main parties in that two-dimensional framework for any party that has previously received a seat at the political table.

  These evaluators did not look at every party that sought a guernsey at the political table (irrespective of their likely success). 

The AEC informs us that, fundamentally 37 registered parties are seeking to place candidates into parliament. When the Morrison government introduced legislation that lifted the membership threshold for registering a federal political party from 500 to 1,500, some 40 parties found themselves in trouble. Some parties ceased to exist, such as the Australian Workers Party, which I evaluated as having the best range of progressive policies in 2019. Other parties (Science, Pirate, Secular, and Climate Emergency) deregistered their original name and formed their own coalition as the new Fusion Party. Others like the TNL (The New Liberals) went on a successful membership drive. So just like the last election, I began the long task of assessing the policies of 37 parties, some of whom did not exist when I last devoted myself to this task. Some old parties developed new guidelines there were no signs of three years ago, and others dropped policies I had assumed were entrenched from 2019.

In this election, I evaluated 24 specific ideological premises, starting with Climate Change mitigation and ending alphabetically with Worker’s Rights. The list of issues I evaluated from each party was:

  1. Climate mitigation 
  2. Drug Reform 
  3. Economy
  4. Education 
  5. Employment 
  6. Energy 
  7. Environment  
  8. Gender equality 
  9. Government accountability 
  10. Healthcare 
  11. Housing and cost of living 
  12. Immigration & refugees 
  13. Indigenous 
  14. Industrial relations 
  15. Infrastructure 
  16. LGBTQ rights 
  17. Media Management
  18. Monetary principles  
  19. Poverty and inequality 
  20. Public transport 
  21. Security/ Foreign & Domestic
  22. Social justice 
  23. Superannuation & pensions 
  24. Worker’s Rights

The ABC's Overton Window on politics in 2022.
The ABC’s Overton Window on politics in 2022.

Some of these issues came from a list of policies generated by ABC’s vote compass analysis of what participants were interested in from back in 2019. I then added a few other policy agendas or, in some cases, split issues. For example, I split climate issues into direct mitigation separate from environmental issues.  

I documented how I defined each of these with a series of questions about each issue and assessed the contents of each party’s policies. You can find that at: http://auswakeup.info/issues/election-issue-2022.pdf.

Another table was created with columns for 37 parties with 24 rows for each issue.  From this, I began writing notes or abbreviating the lists of policy positions each party gave to that issue. That took a good while, as parties don’t necessarily neatly describe their policies in the categories I generated. In some cases, they had policies whose classes I didn’t evaluate. The PDF for that is at http://auswakeup.info/issues/party-comments.pdf, but you will have to zoom in to get all the detail. Don’t try examining this on your tiny smartphone screen. It is important not to mislead you. I have not listed all the party’s policy positions, and I may have missed some. Some party’s policies are very comprehensive, and when I realised I had enough to make a reasonable assessment, I moved to the next issue. It took me over a week to do what I have done, so I did not wish to get bogged down in extraneous detail.

As I completed the assessment to the point where I had a broad summary for each party, I scored the results and moved to the next party’s website.

Pecuniary Interests Register

First off, I should address my allegiances. As a Journalist, I am a current member of a registered political party that, while still in existence, has no stake in the federal election. I am a founding member of the Arts Party. They voluntarily deregistered from the national sphere well before Morrison changed the rules. They are still registered at the State level, where the executive decided to focus their efforts. I also spent two and a half years on the executive of the Real Democracy party developing and building it. It was a social democratic party that based its economic policy on Modern Monetary Theory.  In 2019 we gave up on the hope of ever getting it registered. 

My Philosophical framework.

I would consider myself a socialist, although the family that brought me up, would be better described as “Small-L” liberals. When at 18 I went off to vote for the first time, my Father, after telling me how they voted for the local Liberal candidate, asked me for whom I voted? My disrespectful reply was, “Well, at least I cancelled out one of those votes!” My Father was aghast but fortunately loved me enough not to disown me.

This is the lens through which I evaluated and scored each party. You can take my notes and re-evaluate how you might score them per your own principles.

Scoring

I rated each party’s position on the 24 issues from minus one to three.

  • -1 : my assessment of the party’s position is that I hold it is deleterious to our society, economy and country. For example, climate denial/recalcitrance always got a minus one, as did evident anti-vaxxer ideologies and support for the crime of offshore refugee detention positions.)
  • 0 : means no policy was mentioned on this issue or was either relatively insignificant or aspects were so mixed between deleterious and reasonable as to cancel one another out. For example, Katter’s lousy policy on creating a new class of Blue Card that applies only to Indigenous communities. Still, he also has an excellent approach to inalienable title deeds issued to First Australians.)
  • 1 : represents the bare minimum or basically a reasonable approach but nothing to write home about. For example, Kim for Canberra says, “religion should not be used to discriminate against others in any context” which, while good, is the bare minimum for Social Justice issues) 
  • 2 : it means good but needs improvement or doesn’t cover the entire scope of the issue. The Reason party has good pro-renewable energy policies and divestment from fossil fuels. Still, there are no specific strategies around subsidisation, phasing from one to another, and energy security, which is a commonly missing aspect.
  • 3 : a great set of policies for this area, perhaps complete or so little missing as to suggest the party would likely progressively fill any gaps in the future. For example, the comprehensive policy for Indigenous people comes from the Indigenous Aboriginal Party of Australia.)

Integrity

Evaluating a policy position has to assess the integrity of the claim. If the party lacks integrity or has a record of lying to gain a political advantage, that has to discredit their claim to a policy. So, for example, when the Liberal party claims to have a policy to “back small businesses with tax incentives”, I have noted that is not so if they are removing the Low and middle-income earner tax offsets. If you want a good laugh at Josh Frydenberg trying to spin it, watch Richard Denniss disassemble his claims on YouTube.

An alternate example might be the new housing policy for young first time home buyers to use 40% of their superannuation. I noted in my matrix that Morrison had already “allowed superannuation depletion by 3 million people” when he permitted people to access these funds during Covid in lockdowns rather than funding them through Job Keeper. Now Morrison suggests taking even more out of superannuation to support the housing crisis. Which even the “Investment Magazine” thinks is a bad idea. They expressed their concerns in their article “Deposit dipping into super not the answer to housing crisis” Sufficient to say, despite what Morrison claimed was a good policy, on the issue of “housing and cost of living“, I awarded the Liberals a negative one rating.

Weighting the results.

In addition to direct scoring, I have weighted my scoring also. I have doubled my initial scores for four policy areas I believe are crucial for this election. Those four areas are:

  1. Climate mitigation.
  2. Economic monetary principles (MMT).
  3. Corruption and accountability management.
  4. The Rights of the Working Class.  

This should be the climate election; 2019 was not. Catering to the neo-liberal economic principles based on the Monetarism theories of economic models developed by Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and promoted by Alan Greenspan, Robert Murphy, Paul Krugman and Jonathan Hartley is deplorable. It fails to recognise that we are an economically sovereign nation that issues our currency that everyone else uses. Instead, we should be following the post-Keynesian theories based on John Maynard Keynes and regenerated as the Modern Monetary models promoted by Prof Bill Mitchell, Stephanie Kelton, Pavlina Tcherneva and Warren Mosler. Books to read on this include “Doughnut Economics” as espoused by Kate Raworth, Stephanie Kelton’s “Deficit Myth“, “Reclaiming the State” by Prof Bill Mitchell and “Job Guarantee” as written by Pavlina Tcherneva. Corruption in politics costs society and business, and a Federal ICAC with teeth and divestment from corporate political donations are research subjects my wife specialises in and about which she has written extensively. As for Worker’s rights, well, I am, after all, a socialist, so I think that is important. However, while no Australian party declares the workers should seize the means of production as they did in Spain in 1936. Some of us see the value of a less violent uprising that might achieve that goal.

My results

So now that all my caveats, preferences, prejudices, etc., are loudly proclaimed, here are my resulting scores. Presented both with and without my weighting, which is published in the PDF located at http://auswakeup.info/issues/party-policy-scores.pdf.  

You can print it off, and using the data in http://auswakeup.info/issues/party-comments.pdf, you can restore it in accordance with your own values. {Note: you will need to print the latter on A2 sized paper for it to be readable}

Preferences

Some results were unexpected. Parties I scored highly in 2019 have dropped better policies for poorer ones, by which I was disappointed. But then parties that were fair before have lifted their game in 2022. Due to this exercise, I have changed my mind about which parties and the sequencing I will vote for them. “What gets measured, gets managed“, as my small-liberal voting Father often said. He was right in some things, and I honour his memory by respecting that advice.

Use the power of preferential voting
Use the power of preferential voting

The last warning or advice from this article is, for heaven’s sake, Australians, stop being so lazy as to abdicate your choices to party preferences, and choose your own preferences — number all the boxes. Understand how preferences work and use them to your advantage. Even if your best choice doesn’t receive a place at the political table, they might get enough funding from the AEC to keep going. Your preference vote will move to the next party in your choice of preferences until it settles on a winning party. That is the power of preferences, so don’t buy into this propaganda that you can’t vote for minor parties because this is a crucial election (they all are). It is not necessary to vote first for a likely winning party as that constitutes bandwagon voting and diminishes the power of your Australian preferential vote.  Your vote will still get to that party! With all the potential corrupt corporate donations, the duopoly of Labor and Liberal doesn’t need the AEC money, but a smaller party with better policies does.

Summary

My three highest-scoring parties, irrespective of my weighting (but also including it), are TNL (The New Liberals), Socialist Alliance and the Reason Party. Conversely, the three lowest scorings, all of which have accumulated a negative score over 24 areas of evaluation, are Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, the Nationals and the Liberal Party.

Saturday the 21st of May 2022 is upon us this week. Choose wisely!

Filed Under: Politicians

Josh’s Jobless Jargon

March 31, 2022 by James J. Morrison W.G. Dupree Leave a Comment

Josh Frydenberg is spruiking the coalition’s accomplishments claiming, “Our Govt’s economic plan to create more jobs is working”. However, his statistics based on these claims crumble under scrutiny.

In essence, there are five claims he tweeted recently.

  • Unemployment has dropped to 4% in Feb,
  • 77k jobs created
  • The participation rate is at a record high
  • Female unemployment is at a 48 yr low of 3.8%
  • 375k more Aussies in work than pre-COVID

 

Real Unemployment

Despite an attitude of incredulity at the idea that we have such a trim level of unemployment, Josh boasted of unemployment being “the equal lowest in 48 years”. The government is very proud of its apparent economic credentials. So are we to believe that unemployment is the lowest in years with, ascending rental rates and the cost of living, escalating petrol prices, but for obvious reasons wages are stagnating? ABS reported seasonally adjusted unemployment approaching this figure, last in August 2008 (4.1%) and February 2008 (4.0%). So 48 years ago Josh? My maths is not what it used to be.

So employment is better now, only a couple of years out from cataclysmic bushfires that caused over $100B in damages amid a continuing pandemic and massive floods damages? We are also just out of a politically recognised “drop-in-real-GDP” recession but still in the per capita recession that began in mid-2018 (acknowledged in 2019) and showed no real prospect of improvement. Does anything about our Economy ring right?

 

ABS’s absent considerations

Cracks are showing when it comes to the ABS unemployment statistics, which the government is quoting ad nauseam. Social media is replete with scepticism. There is a lack of credibility in employment stats when one hour’s work represents employment. It is not one hour a week; as they review the previous three weeks from your reference week. Go read my June 2020 article titled “Unemployment by COVID exploded” under the subheading “6.2%? Really?” for the explanation.

 

The issue is not just the one-hour criteria. It is the zero-hours criteria that should also concern you. People in the Gig economy who have been given zero hours and zero pay should not be considered employed. Yet that is precisely what ABS does for reasons that have nothing to do with it being a measure of domestic internal unemployment. The ABS states: “The term ‘labour force’, as defined by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in the international standards, is associated with a particular approach to the measurement of employment and unemployment.”

 

International or Domestic terminal

ABS follows the ILO methodology measures, for international comparative purposes. The methodology was never designed to measure the domestically internal unemployment of any country, because it excludes too many people. The integrity of a domestic measure of unemployment has to be questioned if, for example, it discounts the numbers of people just because they work in the Gig economy under zero-hour contracts. Gig workers are still counted as employed by the ABS even when given zero hours and zero pay.

 

Every other measure of unemployment is far larger than the ABS’s measure. Still, people are largely unaware of the size of the alternate and more accurate measurements of domestic employment. It is not merely that adding the 130,800 people on zero-hours to the ABS measure of 563,300 unemployed – for international comparative purposes – would raise the 4.04% figure for global comparison to 694,100 or 4.98%. There are more extensive assessments. For example, the sheer number of JobSeeker stats has only recently dropped just below a million people.

 

At 949,937 people on Jobseeker in February – a number Josh Frydenberg has demonstrated familiarity with – it stretches credibility that 949K versus 563K are simply relegated to margins of error.

Beyond these numbers, there are the estimations made by Roy Morgan, which indicate that 1,227,000 people were unemployed in February 2022. ABS and Roy Morgan’s unemployment figures are estimates based on surveys. At the very least, Jobseeker is a hard count of people receiving a benefit. To review the history of all these numbers, post-recession, I have charted them in Fig 1.

Fig 1. various unemployment measures in Australia post-recession
Fig 1.  various unemployment measures in Australia post-recession

Crossing lines

My reasoning for choosing any measure requires accepting the reasonable postulate, that any internal measure of unemployment should minimally accept that people who have worked zero hours should be included as unemployed. ABS does account for zero-hours workers. So if the current ABS figure and zero-hours workers were added together over the last two years, the graph reveals an interesting anomaly. There are two periods in which that combination exceeds the value of JobSeeker, and that is why Jobseeker by itself – although a hard count – does not represent domestic unemployment numbers.

The combination of ABS unemployment plus Zero-hours numbers exceeded the Jobseeker numbers twice in the last two years. The first occurred in April 2020, and then again for the three months from August to October 2021. Now the first one, to be fair, is at the recession’s start, and it is reasonable to ascribe that to the chaos of the time and errors in measurements. I have previously pointed out how often ABS altered at random intervals their unemployment measures reflecting much uncertainty in my aforementioned June 2020 article. But a sustained series of measures over three months draws different conclusions in a calmer time.

 

It indicates the absolutely unemployed with not even an hour of work for each month exceeded the Jobseeker’s hard count. However, that anomaly doesn’t factor in all the other reasons ABS undercounts people as unemployed, such as:

  • exclusions for unpaid work in a family business, or paid busking or street vending;
  • exclusions of short-term foreign workers through the 12/16 rule;
  • exclusions of persons unable to take up immediate work;
  • hiding unemployment via the government PaTH program;

So what measurement methodology addresses these weaknesses and exclusions?

Answer: Roy Morgan’s employment and unemployment estimates!

Now the reasons for the gap between Jobseeker and Roy Morgan I previously explained in my article titled “Frydenberg’s maths problem”. So what does Roy Morgan show us regarding underemployment and unemployment? What does either ABS’s quarterly measure of Job vacancies or the Department of Employment’s monthly measure of internet Job vacancies tell us about the jobs available for folks looking for work?

 

The graph of those figures [Fig 2] shows the harsh reality of a paucity of job opportunities and a frightening level of underemployment and unemployment. But, unfortunately, this government has done little to rectify that plight. Frankly, when you consider their dismissal of the public service and their deliberate undermining of manufacturing, it has simply exacerbated the situation.

Fig 2. Under and unemployment in Australia 2013 - 2022 vs Job Vacancies
Fig 2. Under and unemployment in Australia 2013 – 2022 vs Job Vacancies

 

Solutions and reassessments

There are solutions to the unemployment crisis, such as a Federal Job Guarantee. However, there is a complete ideological unwillingness to implement such solutions because it would end wage stagnation. The private sector would have to compete with the government for workers by offering better wages and conditions.

 

So what does Roy Morgan say is the truth compared to Josh Frydenberg’s list of accomplishments with which we started?

  • Unemployment has risen to 8.5% in Feb an increase of 26,000 from January,
  • Employment fell by 163,000 to 13,216,000 in February, driven by a fall in part-time employment
  • The workforce dropped 137,000 in February
  • Female unemployment is also at 8.5% despite being a smaller proportion of the workforce [see Fig 3]
  • Employment is 344,000 higher than it was pre-COVID-19 (13,216,000 – 12,872,000).

Fig 3: Female Unemployment measure variations in Australia from 2019 to Feb 2022
Fig 3: Female Unemployment measure variations in Australia from 2019 to Feb 2022

 

The conclusion about Frydenberg’s claims leaves us with two options.  That the man delivering the budget for the whole of the Australian economy has either

  1. no idea what the actual state of the economy is, or
  2. is a _ _ _ _ (well, I don’t want to be the one to say it – these guys are litigious, and I can’t afford it.)

Filed Under: Employment, Politicians

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 9
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Search for what you seek:

Recent backchat

  • Pass the Baton - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on A Climate of Opinion.
  • Casting Light on Marriage - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on Coming Out
  • Coming Out - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on Marriage by Definition
  • Coming Out - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on Dear Eric
  • Coming Out - Australia Awaken - ignite your torches on Casting Light on Marriage

Archives

  • June 2025
  • April 2025
  • July 2023
  • December 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • May 2022
  • March 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • January 2021
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • May 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • January 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • November 2014

Categories

  • Awards
  • Budget
  • Climate Change
  • Corruption
  • Employment
  • Environment
  • Foreign
  • Health
  • Indigenous
  • Partisan
  • Politicians
  • Privatisation
  • Race
  • Refugees
  • Religous
  • Satire
  • Sexuality
  • Taxes
  • Uncategorized
  • Voting
  • Women
  • writing

Copyright © 2025 · Auswakeup Media · Log in