Home > Economics - General > What I wrote on Budget day: International

What I wrote on Budget day: International

May 12th, 2010

My response to the Budget’s international outlook

A lot of things have changed since the 2009-10 budget. But in one respect, things remain the same. The international economy is in crisis, and the pace of change is such that any assessment runs the risk of being out of date by the time it comes back from the printers.

The Budget papers include some discussion of the economic and fiscal crisis in Greece and the rest of the Southern European periphery. But, inevitably, the assessment of the international outlook reads as if it was settled some time in April. There have been some dramatic events since then, with new risks and new possibilities emerging. These events have been reflected in dramatic fluctuations in global financial markets, with last weeks Wall Street plunge and yesterday’s equally surprising surge.

The plunge reflected an assessment that the package of loan guarantees for Greece, painfully stitched together by the EU and IMF would not be sufficient, either to prevent an eventual Greek default or to stop contagious panic spreading through Southern Europe and beyond. Underlying this assessment was the assumption, well justified by experience, that the EU would be slow and indecisive in response.

The announcement over the weekend of a stabilization fund with resources of more than a trillion dollars turned that assumption on its head. The fear that the EU periphery might be cut adrift suddenly abated, to be replaced by a concern about whether the EU as a whole can manage the task it has taken on. Almost certainly that will require a more expansionary policy from the European Central Bank, which fortunately has a fair bit of room to move. In addition, there will need to be a substantial surrender of national economic sovereignty, already imposed on Greece as part of the austerity package. Finally, the central role of irresponsible lending practices on the part of major European banks will have to be taken into account.

What does all this mean for Australia. The direct implications are relatively modest, at least assuming the EU rescue package holds together. But the entire episode is a reminder that the global economic environment is far less stable than it seemed a few years ago. Problems in obscure corners of the global economy, such as subprime real estate in the US, or Greek public debt, can suddenly grow and metastasise into systemic threats.

The biggest concern for the Australian economy is that some similar development might take place in China. Our near-miraculous escape from the impacts of the global financial crisis is largely due to the fact that China adopted stimulus policies on a scale at least as large, relative to the economy, as in Australia.

But the Chinese economy has all sorts of vulnerabilities, including reliance on an overheated construction sector and opaque business practices that almost certainly conceal a lot of sins. Such sins go unpunished in a boom, but are exposed mercilessly in a recession.

On the whole, the increased instability in the global economy reinforces the government’s economic message. The capacity to use monetary and fiscal policy in response to some unexpected future shock will be enhanced by a rapid return to budget surplus and neutral settings for monetary policy.

It’s impossible, though, to avoid observing that Australia has its own vulnerabilities, which haven’t been resolved. Our housing bubble is still inflating, along with China’s at a time when bubbles everywhere else in the world have burst. And our current account deficit remains higher than is comfortable, reflecting the fact that our savings are insufficient to finance both the mining boom and our predilection for big houses. Policymakers need to be alert, if not alarmed.

Categories: Economics - General Tags:
  1. Alice
    May 14th, 2010 at 20:01 | #1

    For the people that like to suggest government debt is the root of all evil…they forget the bail outs of the “too big to fail” financial institutions added to that debt and in many cases blew it out. It would appear that either governments were destined to fail OR the financial institutions that should, perhaps, have failed.

    Take your pick…but if its governments that are going to fall in favour of the banks…you had better be prepared to live in a rioting anarchic state. So much for free capital and free banks. So the the next leader of Germany may as well be…Joseph Ackerman of Deustch Bank. What next after that? The leader of other “piigs’ countries – who will they be?

    http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100514/GJOPINION_0102/705149962/-1/FOSOPINION

  2. Alice
    May 14th, 2010 at 20:08 | #2

    lll also add I dont support what the article says…why should the ordinary man be made to suffer because of the titans in the financial industry who coudnt bail themselves out? Why should ordinary people who work hard and pay taxes bail them out?
    Im sorry the financial institutions got their damn bail outs when it leads to bankrupt governments and austerity measures on people who did not milk the financial system for all it was worth like bank CEOs and executives. Its ridiculous. The bail out money should, in every case, have been spent on main street not Wall street and yes its Keynesian and yes it would have worked a damn sight better.

  3. Alice
    May 14th, 2010 at 20:09 | #3

    Now…can we finally consign Friedman and his love of all things money into the trash can, once and for all??

  4. thomas machado
    May 23rd, 2010 at 03:07 | #4

    hey,recently I´ve seen your article on marxian economics. there´s a book hy john bellamy foster called “the great financial crisis explained” something like that.check it out i amazon to see it. it´s very good by the way
    cheers

Comments are closed.