The Australian case for nationalisation

The speed with which bank nationalisation has risen to the top of the policy agenda has found the economics profession largely unprepared. The literature on property rights that developed in the 1970s produced a range of arguments in favour of private as opposed to public ownership which had at least some influence on the widespread adoption of privatisation policies in the 1980s and 1990s. Although subsequent theoretical and empirical developments, such as the discovery of the equity premium puzzle and developments in agency theory cast doubt on the claims of the original literature, the profession had moved on, and showed little interest in revisiting the issues. As Joshua Gans observes,

the main contributions have come from Australian economists who did this research a decade ago only to be told by international journals that as privatisation had occurred everywhere by then, no one was interested in the conditions under which government ownership would be preferable.

and notes “I guess that view is wrong.” Unsurprisingly, I was among those who tried, with limited success, to interest the international profession in this question.

Looking at the history of the issue, it’s also not all that surprising that such debate as there was took place mainly in Australia. Until very recently, the economics profession has been dominated by the US, where public ownership is rarely part of policy debate, and by the UK, where the advocates of privatisation were dominant from the start. Australia is typically among the primary export markets for UK policy ideas, and this was certainly the case with privatisation. In Australia proposals for privatisation ran into serious political difficulties which created room for a critical analysis of central elements of the case for privatisation.

It rapidly became evident that the idea that privatisation was a method by which governments could raise money was not, in general, true – the earnings foregone through privatisation were often worth more than the sale price. And simplistic claims about improved efficiency only worked well for firms operating in competitive markets with little needed for regulation. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, public ownership was concentrated in industries with a high degree of natural monopoly and other problems that necessitated continuing government involvement.

Australia has made some notable contributions to economic thought, particularly the work of Trevor Swan (arguably the most significant economist never to win a Nobel prize), Colin Clark on national accounting, and before that the “Australian case for protection” developed by the Brigden Commission and later formalised as the Stolper-Samuelson theorem. In the 1970s, the “Gregory thesis” was an independent analysis of what became known internationally as “Dutch disease”. As these examples suggest, we tend to suffer a bit from being on the far side of the planet from the main centres of activity in the profession. It will be interesting to see if the Australian case for nationalisation gets any recognition now that the idea is in vogue in the Northern hemisphere.

I’ll try to post a list of useful references on this topic before too long.

71 thoughts on “The Australian case for nationalisation

  1. Interesting analysis, as a non-economist, I find your blog provides a great insight into current thinking in the field.

    This piece however, you had the jargon setting a little too high. I’d be interested to hear what the two ideas: “equity premium puzzle and developments in agency theory” mean – particularly in the context of the nationalisation debate. Similarly the theorems and thesis of the last paragraph.

    Despite finding myself over my head on this occasion, I found the observations interesting.

  2. El Mono, this thought occurred to me too, and I was going to write about some similar confusions (there was a notorious one involving glycerol in wine) but I couldn’t find a good link.

  3. As always, your blog tweaks the neurons most agreeably. Any chance of a tad more on “the discovery of the equity premium puzzle and developments in agency theory”
    In a past life while touring in a rock band, I actually caught a Dutch disease. While curable it was definitely most irritating.
    Thanks JQ!
    Una mente, uno consilio 😉

  4. A regulated private monopoly is all ways a better model than a self regulated nationalised one.

    Governments should primarily regulate. If government concentrated on regulating well as opposed to becoming an excessive government, where they try to do everything, yet do none of it well, which is what has been happening, then we would’nt have this unregulated mess in the financial markets.

  5. The case for nationalisation has been extended to energy companies as well as banks. In the US attempts have been made to ‘decouple’ private profits from amounts of electricity and gas sold to customers. Essentially the firm has to be compensated for giving up higher sales. It has been suggested if there is no longer a requirement for an equity return then the task would be easier. That task would then become to manage rationing rather than make a profit.

    Instead the department of energy supply will provide you with just the amount of electricity and gas it thinks you should have. This could be a bureaucratic nightmare but then the private profit maximisation model doesn’t work so well either.

  6. Nationalisation/public ownership (in itself) is not useful.

    I am not sure where this concept comes from, but utopian socialism come to mind – however they were calling for cooperative ownership.

    Karl Marx indicated that “expropriators need to be expropriated”. He also indicated that capitalism was based on an original privatisation of common means of production (eg enclosures).

    But the great problem was not this – this was just the environment.

    Consequently, undoing privatisation and using taxfunded welfare to counter expropriation never solves the real issue.

    Unfortunately a State run, and public owned, or a nationalised enterprise can still operate on a capitalist basis, issue debt, cut costs, trick workers, suborn politicians, hire thugs, run roughshod over rights, in a lust for maximum profits.

    It is the debt/profits nexus that is the problem. A small business person who owns all their own property but only makes a wage, creates no economic crisis, but a nationalised enterprise seeking to maximise profits destroys society.

    Forget nationalisation – look deeper.

  7. We live in interesting times as Obama is somewhat critical of
    “reports that we’ve seen over the last couple of days about companies that have received taxpayer assistance, then going out and renovating bathrooms or offices, or in other ways not managing those dollars appropriately.”
    As Greg Mankiw asks somewhat rhetorically, what’s the difference in macroeconomic fiscal stimulus between a local bank branch of a head office in receipt of TARP funds spending $20k on remodelling the branch bathroom, or lending it out to a homeowner to do likewise? Presumably Rudd is about to do likewise with his ‘Property Fund’ and the latest report in The Oz that the Govt is considering topping up manufacturing workers wages for those being forced to use up any annual and LS leave and RDO entitlements and ultimately going part time with manufacturing shutdown periods. That $4bill to save 50,000 construction jobs is $80,000 per job which raises the obvious that shouldn’t the Govt pay all firms to retain workers laid off due to the recession? After all it’s only a fiscal deficit measure to tide things over until the good times return and it saves trying to pick winners. Just scoop the losers up under the Govt’s protective wing temporarily.

  8. When the profit motive, which is supposed to be the driver for the efficiency of private ownership, collides with accepted social objectives, then in the words of the song “something’s got to give”.
    Electricity is one example. Even in the days of semi-privatised electricity, these utilities were providing incentives for all-electric homes and spruiking the advantages of air-conditioning, which meant more electricity used. And governments were offering ridiculously cheap power to attract aluminium plants and the like to their regions.
    More than three decades ago there were those warning about the potential dangers of not recognising the finite nature of energy resources or the thermodynamic principles in the best uses of different forms of energy.
    For example, Barry Commoner’s “The poverty of power. Energy and the Economic Crisis” was first published in 1976 by Jonathan Cape. It said, among many other things, that electricity was an inefficient power source for heating (hot water or stoves). Even back then Commoner suggested electricity was fine for cooling air-conditioners that were driven mechanically by a compressor but was wrong for heat-operated air-conditioners (and presumably reverse cycle air-conditioners).
    I don’t remember any electricity or gas utilities heeding these warnings.
    Now, we have the concept that using air-conditioning on hot days is bad, unless you are rich enough to afford it (Perhaps, though, it would be preferable to eliminate the heating capacity of air-conditioners and rely on gas for heating, making the old-fashioned air-conditioners cheaper to use for cooling.). As I understand it, those railing against air-conditioning do so on the basis of the power surges that occur on hot days.
    Today all utilities – gas, electricity and water – are promoting the benefits of lower use of their products. The catch in this is that they seek higher prices for the sales forgone, even when they are in full or semi-government ownership. The regulatory bodies, such as IPART in NSW, then try to reconcile the irreconcilable in the free market system – that the object is to set a price for a product without having the benefits of scale of extra sales.
    Before people get too carried away with the notion that prices have to be set to reflect the scarce resource, perhaps we should examine past practices when water, gas and electricity were provided at excessively cheap prices to encourage industries that needed to use them extensively. The time has surely come to end these concessions before asking the average household consumer to continue to subsidise them.

  9. Sir Thomas Playford (not a socialist) nationalised the electricity market in SA to deal with the inefficiencies of a privatised market. He wanted to develop an industrial capacity in the state and recognised that the privatised delivery impeded these plans. Of course as JohnL points out the inbuilt cheap prices are still there in the form of differential tariffs for industry and the consumer.

    Sometimes however having a great deal of distance between ourselves and the centres of economic thought can be a good thing as we don’t just go along with the crowd and certainly even in our privatised industries there are more expectations about service delivery than overseas.

    There were the economic arguments for privatisation but there is also the political will to get rid of a responsibility and be able to blame a private provider for failure. The public has not accepted this, which has caused problems for the political class, as once an activity is privatised politicians often have little ability to control outcomes whilst still being held responsible by the public because of their failure in the regulatory role.

    This leaves the question how can a government regulate itself as a provider? This has been one of the biggest reasons given for privatisation; that the regulator needs to be independent of the delivery arm. This conveniently ignores the other issues such as market manipulation, lack of competition and other far greater negatives.

  10. Unless the enterprise is run in an open and transparent manner, with full disclosure of meetings, policy decisions and so forth, then eventually the management will find ways to attract greater and greater power and privilege to themselves. Nationalised or not.

  11. What I would like to know with nationalisation. Whats the government going to do when the government officials appointed to the bank board tell the government they cant let them know whats going on because it would be contrary to the corporations legislation or commercial in comfidence or some other smokescreen? What will the government do when the government officials on the board go along with huge pay rises for the executives? Not enough control and the government will set themselves up to be “had.”

    I dont trust the partial privatisation or the partial nationalisation idea. Mixing private and public sector interests organisationally unravels more often than not. Too different purposes – and they are irreconcilable. Nationalise the bank in entirety or let the bank fail. The financial sector needs rationalising and its going to happen whether we like it or not. Financial institutions multiplied when the boom was running (but now there are simply too many of them). Or make it a requirement they can only lend if they have a pool of deposits and let firms lending on creative debt instruments go to the wall.

  12. I agree with nanks.

    I would want such open enterprises encouraged through land rate, and payroll tax concessions but with heavy taxation of any surplus beyond a moderate rate we could expect to be sustainable.

    They would have a competitive advantage in the wider economy for customers seeking a service, but not for capitalists seeking maximum profits.

    You can mix capitalist shops and open democratic shops and let customers decide where to go and for which to work for.

    So it is not nationalisation so much as a form of democratisation and transparency.

    If there is no real reason (or gain after tax) to maximise profits, then there is not much cause for increasing per capita debt – so greater economic stability for customers, producers and workers results.

  13. Thank Buddha that NSW didn’t sell off the electricity sector. No matter how inefficient it currently is there is nothing worse than a private monopoly trying to maximise profits by promoting electricity usage.

    All the talk of electricity used in aluminium refining, its cement production that is the killer. I just spent a weekend in Rome looking at 200 year old cement structures. There is a recent theory (http://www.pyramidofman.com/blog/how-were-the-ancient-egyptian-pyramids-built-part-4/)that the Egyptians used it in the pyramids. The nice thing about the egyptian stuff is that it uses hardly any energy, just sun-baked, and you can’t tell me that the big tombs in Giza don’t look a lot better than the concrete jungles we build for ourselves today.

    Portland cement production is one of the most energy intensive process around. The cement industry produces 5% of global man-made CO2 emissions. The amount of CO2 emitted by the cement industry is nearly 900 kg of CO2 for every 1000 kg of cement produced. You have to cook the stuff at 1450C. Little wonder that China’s electricity production has slumped at the same time as a slump in property construction (http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12987564)

  14. Tony G @5,

    I think that you would have to add to your premise “where such a privatised monopoly is in harmony with the public interest for service, price, distribution, contractural flexibility, resource consumption, and environmental best interest”. Take water for instance. We now face a situation where privately held contracts are standing in the way of resource realocation. For power (in following comments) where the drive for consumption expansion is at odds with revised environmental requirements. In telecommunications where fringe interests are unprofitable.

    I think that is far better to see the private sector as performing a modular functionality within a framework of national interests, where the degree of involvement varies with the sensitivity and stability of the sector.

  15. I suppose many will have seen todays Fin. Review’s article by David Bassanese about bank Nationalisation.

    What sort of economic nonsense is this capitalist system?

    Why use the worker-taxpayer and future generations, as a feather bed for capitalists?

    The government should let these banks wilt on the vine, and set-up a new stable public funded bank on a not-for-profit basis.

    Maybe then Westpac, National, Commbank, executives can get jobs cleaning the cars of those who they foreclosed out of their homes.

  16. I think there are two separate points here: the current circumstances which might warrant nationalisation of (some or most?) banks now and the general question of whether all chargeable services should be public or private. In both cases I think the answer is “it depends”. Of course, this is a big change from the previously fashionable view that “private is always best”. Like many fashions that was stupid view.

    Having worked in government when privatisations occurred I don’t think economics was ever the reason though. It was pure expediency – sell them to pay off debts. Economics was the excuse.

  17. When you think back to the stated reasons for the banking deregulation of the 1980s, was “success” ever achieved? Banking profitability rose, but did net costs to consumers ever really fall? Bank charges are a cost to the rest of the system. Did more “banking services” just mean more costs being born by the real economy? I fear so. They certainly haven’t reduced risks.

  18. What we’re talking around here is the never ending subtlety and tension between doing ‘well’ and doing ‘good’. Nowhere was that more obvious than the history of Freddie and Fannie and as one clever observer put it- Some institutions want to do well and some want to do good. When I hear of institutions that want to do both I reach for my wallet and so should you. Sage words and worth remembering given the current GFC and its roots.

    That’s the rub with the banking sector now in that they were expected to serve two masters and inevitably failed. OTOH they are specifically Govt licensed to deliver the coin of the realm through fractional reserve banking and via that mechanism deliver monetary policy but OTO to provide competitive financial services and loans against allcommers. Do good and well and now we’re all reaching for our wallets via future tax liability or serious inflation if central bankers are successful going down that rescue path. The gold price suggests the latter will be futile or even more ominous.

    Crisis management aside, in the longer term if private banks are to be licensed to competitively manage money supply and institute monetary policy they will need to be restricted to doing more good than too well. The money they issue will need to be founded in real value which means only loans with liens/mortgages over real property and goods. That would rule out any involvement with consumer revolving credit unless it was backed by mortgage over eminently saleable goods, RE or registered motor vehicles and perhaps certain high value machinery and equipment. Notice this would mean the banks restricting themselves to only lending on RE up to a fixed percentage of Valuar Generals’ valuations, bearing in mind historical slumps in RE prices. ie perhaps only 65-70% of current valuation, although given that longer term ethos, that slump margin may well whither away somewhat. With the fundamental money supply safe the authorities would be able to call on that safety margin to tighten money supply,(or else the bank requires more private equity of its own) rather than pushing or pulling on interest rates. There’s no reason why the private sector shouldn’t run such strictly licensed and prescribed banks so long as they’re not expected to do Govt ‘good’ with that loan money like Freddie and Fannie. That’s the preserve of specific Govt institutions for the purpose.

  19. I should have added the logical outcome of this is that Govt could guarantee such bank deposits and safely provide liquidity for any run on such banks, without threat to the taxpayer. All other financial investments and deposit taking institutions outside this sector would be strictly buyer beware.

  20. Socrates, who apart from the straw economic man who inhabits your imagination, ever held the view that “private is always best”?

  21. TN

    Several people I dealt with in government had that view on almost everything except defence and control of the money suppply – the classic Milton Friedman line. In one policy paper I read that went to Federal Cabinet, in my view it was fairly clear that the writer didn’t properly understand the economic definition of a “public good”. He/ she thought it meant publically owned. Hence my comment that many of the (political) decision makers didn’t care about the economics.

  22. Those who think that nationalisation is the only answer should go back and read ‘State of Denial’ by Chris Kenny, about the collapse of the State Bank of SA during the premiership of John Bannon. Bad management, secrecy, bail-outs, all the problems are there, just as they are now, globally. Good, independent, transparent regulation is part of the solution, but it won’t stop bubbles forming because there’s always a balance between fear and greed, and when greed is in the ascendant, judgement goes out the window.
    People don’t learn.

  23. John, if ever there was a case for nationalising a bank for fear of an economy imploding then ‘Hypo Real Estate Bank’ in Germany fits the bill. In Australia’s case time will tell whether or not our banks need to be nationalised.

  24. As I recall, Keynes believed that inflation was necessary to reduce real wages.

    An as i also recall, Prime Minister Pitt, also unleashed inflation to reduce real wages.

    So it is an old trick. The Accord(s) was a modern variation.

    Inflation reduces real wages more than real prices because wages are set by agreements (often tri-annual).

  25. 15#plaasmatron says
    “Thank Buddha that NSW didn’t sell off the electricity sector. No matter how inefficient it currently is there is nothing worse than a private monopoly trying to maximise profits by promoting electricity usage.”

    Do you honestly think Barry Ofarrell isnt going to do this. Thast how much we dont understand plitics. Its a liberal party agenda. The only reason Barry didnt vote for it was to take down Moris Iemma. I was happy about that but dont for one minuted think it wont be high on the mibs agenda when they get in. We have about three years. Id like to think otherwise but it aint going to happen.

  26. oops – many spelling errors in previous post (sons laptop).

    Electicity privatisation in NSW will be high on the liberal party agenda if they get in, which they will in NSW. Thats the problem – both the libs and labor want privtaise electricity because they both follow the VERY SAME right wing ideology and that ideology is complete rubbish. Vote to mke your seat marginal is the best advice I can give – vote green or independant until they start listening to us and not their”out of touch” party platforms.

  27. Alanna 28

    I agree the politicians follow that thinking (private is best) but I was trying to imply that even some (not all) economists and many “policy makers” in government held the view too. I can think of one very senior (PhD) economist in my field who was quite explicit about it. He was not alone in that view. Some dissented but that was often a way of ensuring you would never rise very far up the ladder in the line departments I had experience of. I think some of the better economists in Treasury did dissent, but they often had to bite their tongue.

  28. Socrates and Alana,
    Working from within government, I think you are defintely having yourselves on. Even at #23, Socrates, you step back from your original claim.
    I doubt that any serious policy practitioner within government thinks now, or has ever thought, that “private is always best”, or anything like it. Certainly, all the economists I know within government, and that is many, have an approach of weighing up the pros and cons of government and private provision in any particular set of circumstances. You are simply continuing to attack straw economic men of your imagination’s own creation.

  29. have an approach of weighing up the pros and cons of government and private provision in any particular set of circumstances.

    Sorry TN, but this is driven by the policy objectives of government as relayed by Ministers to Secretaries to Departmental Group/Division managers.

    In any case the economic theory taught at universities, including modelling, is in itself contestable by those who want a debt free economy and fair trade.

    Government economists undertake their supposed balancing of pros and cons in an environment biassed by the dogma of wage-inflation spiral, tariff fallacies, and their modelling is incompetant which they explain away as ‘externalities’.

    Economists cannot predict next years growth rate, or CPI, within half a per cent when the magnitude is around 4.

    Economists only expect things will trend along the same lines as past performance and never predict a turning point (except by accident).

    Economists spend most of their time explaining why they were wrong in the past.

    The only solution they have for their so called balancing of pros and cons over the last 100 years is – ‘bugger, get more debt to TARP over the mess’.

    I have lost count of how many trillions of dollars are now being invented to help a world full of economists supposedly balance their pros and cons.

  30. TN

    Perhaps the problem is timing and arguments from anecdotal experience. In my original post 18 I said that view (private is always best) was “fashionable”. I knew then that not all economists believed it. That was my experience of ten years in State and federal government departments and I stand by it. Others may have experienced different people and formed a different view. Nevertheless I can still recall the privatisation push in the early years of the Howard government and I consider that my statement is an accurate reflection of thinking I encountered that was widespread at that time.

    It is now a few years since I last worked in Federal government so perhaps things have changed since. (Hopefully so.) Also I accept that I can only judge from economists I dealt with (mainly in line agencies, not Treasury or DOFA). Hopefully professional economists in Treasury and RBA know better. Even so, I think economists often get selective memories at these sort of times. When I first studied undergraduate economics (late 80s/early 90s) the subject in economic philosophy wasn’t even taught. The view that “private is always best” SHOULD be a straw man, but it was a widely believed one in my experience of government. Perhaps I was just unlucky.

  31. Socrates#31
    It goes further than that – for the past twenty years some economists have sought to keep it under wraps that they were Keynesian in our universities because Keynes has been a dirty or unfashionable word. Well thank goodness thats now coming to an end with Obama fighting for Keynesian initiatives (and yes we now hear the same tired arguments – that the private sector is the fount of all wealth – that when government spends on infrastructure “they cant see how a bridge or road will help because what matters is lending ipso facto give to the banks instead” – the same damn banks that have been gambling to the max – we are also hearing how “oh dear when government spends its just inefficient because its a patchwork approach of throwing here and there and thus its inconsistent” etc bla bla. Im in the US now and all the repblicans are out for more money “for lending” – they just dont get it – they also need spending because people do not want to borrow in this mess. Last thing they want to do.

  32. Then TN #32
    Can you explain how we moved so far down the privatisation road in the past ten years – or did that happen despite the advice of the public sector? In that case where are the checks and balances on governments like Howards – or did he do away with them ? me thinks the latter? He overrode a lot of public sector independent advice as far as I can see? So how did he get away with it? Have the departments all cowed into a corner?

  33. um… it’s not april 1st John.

    There’s another Ben already commenting, so you may want to change your handle. As regards the date, read today’s (or any recent day’s) NYT and WSJ . I imagine by 1 April, the spoof headlines will be something like “Restoration of free market capitalism announced” JQ

  34. Alanna said

    “where are the checks and balances on governments”

    The only check or balance you can have on government is to have less of it. Governments are self regulating monopolies that grant themselves a pay rise every year, perpetually bloating their way into excessiveness.

  35. @Tony G I don’t fully agree Tony – I think if we limited the length of time a politician can serve that would go some way to restricting the accretion of power to individuals. If we similarly limited the holding of power in public service positions that would help as well.

  36. Tony#38

    Ahhhh not so Tony. Let me see how you can do away with the checks and balances of government? You can sack six of the nations 18 public service department sectretaries when you come to power. You can sack the head of the prime ministers department 6 months later. You can replace them with political appointees. You can centralise power to the prime ministers office – you can give ministers power to override the advice or decisions of public sector departments. If I recall rightly Brendan Nelson, despite having no qualifications to do as much, was given the power to override decisions of the ARC re funding for university research. He did in fact override ARC decisions prompting a strong objection from the VCs committee. Why? he didnt like the sound of the research outline.

    Yep – you can Tony and when you do it leads to an autocracy and undermines a democracy. We have public sector checks and balances to stop politicians assuming autocracies Tony but JH thought he would take it any way by changing legislation designed to protect the independence of the public sector and the role and function of ministers and their limited powers over senior bureaucrats (legislation which of course is designed to protect democracy).

    Your criticism of government is all wrong Tony. You should be critical of those who criticise the role of the public sector.

  37. Alanna. said

    “Let me see how you can do away with the checks and balances of government? ”

    Since Federation the total public sector has risen steadily from 6% of GDP to 33% today.

    Although, today to get the same services that the public sector was providing and charging us only 30% of GDP 15 years ago, the equivalent of 50% of GDP is being spent today.

    This due to the large scale privatisations that have occurred since the early 1990s eg. roads, transport, healthcare,education, utilities, pensions, utilities etc. etc. A large proportion of these services are now provided by the private sector, yet the public sector proportion of GDP did not reduce when these items were taken off the public sector ‘balance sheet’.

    What is the public sector doing with that 15% of GDP it is still taxing us for, sweet FA. There is a strong case to bring the public sector back down to 20% of GDP.

    Now where should the mass sacking start? Should we sever a tier or just sack 12% across the 3 tiers to keep those that like federalism happy?

  38. Nanks @ 38

    I agree limit the terms maybe to 8 years like the US president.

    With regards to the “holding of power in public service positions’, just have less of them so they can inflict less damage on the community.

  39. ATTACKS ON STRAW ECONOMIC MEN: MY LAST WORD

    Alana, your latest defence of your position (in #36) relies inter alia on “a move down the road towards privatisation” being evidence of a view that “privatisation is always better”. This simply does not hold up. Given that you have previously mispresented the views and analytical of policy economics in the context of a discussion of competition policy on this blog, I see little value in continuing to engage with you on these matters.

    Likewise, Socrates at #34, you cannot get around your earlier over-reach by saying that you only called the view that “private is always better” “fahionable” and that “I knew that not all economists believed it”. You need to show that a significant number did. I doubt that you could find any who did. In this context, I am not confident, given your understanding of the nuances of economics evident from your other comments on this blog, that your interpretation of the utterances of the odd economist you came accross 10 years ago in a line agency can be relied upon.

    Finally, regarding Chris Warren’s anti-economics spray at #33, in which he mentions “fair trade”, “debt free economies” and other indicators of a rigorous mind at work, my response is that, apart from these words, I really can’t be bothered to respond.

    In any case, on past evidence, I doubt that continued exposure of the various logical fallacies and factual innacuracies underlying your attacks on policy economists in this blog’s comments threads will cause any of you to desist.

  40. TN#43

    It seems TN, that you resent certain arguments (such as my own) that suggest we may have gone too far down the privatisation road to the extent that public service provision and that the role of the government as an employer (and the fiscal stimulatory effect this can have on the economy along with the benefits to short and long term infrastructure) has been undermined eithin economic policy direction, over the past twenty five or so years in Australia. In short, I suggest, and its fairly well accepted, that there has been a paradigm shift to private provision, the use of competition policy (which I consider at odds with public purpose), and market provision as a dominant paradigm within economic policy direction. IF you dont want to engage on that – that is your decision. However if you disagree – where is your point?

  41. TN#43

    You quoted me thus in 43

    “Alana, your latest defence of your position (in #36) relies inter alia on “a move down the road towards privatisation” being evidence of a view that “privatisation is always better”.

    That is a misquote (of me at 36). I did suggest that the move towards privatisation implies a view that “privatisation is always better”.

    I, at no stage, suggested that. You inferred it and incorrectly.

    To be clear, what I am suggesting is that the move towards privatisation of public services and outsourcing of public sector operations, and applying competition policy iniatives (such as user pays charges between government departments) in Australia over the past 25 years or so, in general has been taken way too far, despite any views individual public servant economic policy makers may hold.

    I hope that clarifies your misinterpretation of what I suggested.

  42. Re Tony Gs #41 Tony G continues to quote percentages with no reliable sources given and calls for mass sackings of public servants

    (How about using the ABS Tony? Thats what they do.)

    Tony forgets the role of government is crucial to a well run democracy and apart from the stimulatory effects of public sector jobs, it also acts as a check and balance on politicians who seek too much power. There are processes that politicians need to follow (such as seeking independent advice from the buraecracy) that prevent them turning our democracy into an autocracy.

    The AWB scandal was a classic example. As a result of the appointment by Howard of “politically sympathetic” advisers, it enabled Ministers like Downer to claim they “were not informed” that bribes were being paid, despite senior public servants informing the ministerial advisers.

    As a result of these political appointments as they affected the AWB case, the law has now been effectively altered, to permit Ministers to absolve themselves of any responsibility by claiming “I was not informed.”

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Another check and balance torn down by the politicisation of the public service.

    Our politicians should be accountable for what occurs under their watch in the departments under their control. That is what protects our democracy. To do away with the proper processes and procedures of the public service invites the rise of a situation where too much power concentrated in too few hands.

    As I see it there are three major benefits of a well run public service

    a) public sector employment
    b) the provision of vital public infrastructure
    c) to act as a check and balance to our political leadership; to protect democracy and to ensure political leaders act for the benefit of the majority and not for the interests of the few

  43. “percentages with no reliable source” table 27.19 TAXATION REVENUE AND GDP PER HEAD here The public sector giving themselves a pay rise every year since federation.

    “it also acts as a check and balance on politicians who seek too much power”

    Sounds like the fox watching the hen house, but I suppose burdening everyone with too much bureaucracy will stop anything happening at all, even “politicians who seek too much power”
    . .

    “a) public sector employment” = communism, we know how efficient that is.

    “b) the provision of vital public infrastructure”; In NSW it doesn’t even happen and in any case the private sector does it better. You would’nt want to go to a public hospital in NSW, thank goodness there is private ones.

    “c) to act as a check and balance to our political leadership; to protect democracy and to ensure political leaders act for the benefit of the majority and not for the interests of the few”;
    self regulating monopolies do not work and that is what the government/public sector is. Unfortunately they act for the benefit of themselves and not the majority

    THe best “check and balance to our political leadership” is to kick them out at the ballot box and every few years. The rest of the public sector should be culled just as often, unfortunately in the case of Australia’s public sector this has not occurred for a long time.

  44. Minimising government without an adequate criterion for an objective function, well that’s hardly a sensible approach to life.

    I’m in no way convinced that the market economy is “efficient” in the sense of optimising allocation of resources. The whole question of efficiency revolves around the choice of time horizon and of measures. Given the Dante’sqe descent into Hell we are witnessing today, I think this is rather damning evidence to the inefficiencies of the market economy. Governments too often get a bad rap.

    The Bannon era in South Australia merely demonstrates two things: i) Being both premier and treasurer is a courageous venture, and foolhardy in the extreme; ii) Public organisations, such as the State Bank of South Australia, can fail too. Especially when rebadged and run by Marcus Clark (where is he now…).

    A failure of a single government owned bank is treated as justification to privatise it (and other state government utilities such as power). A failure of several financial companies is treated as part of capitalism, so business as usual, boys. The contrast is poignant.

  45. Tony G at 38.
    “Governments are self regulating monopolies that grant themselves a pay rise every year, perpetually bloating their way into excessiveness.”

    And bankers haven’t indulged in excessiveness? Not to mention the CEOs of all the major corporations?

  46. I have here an example of bankers attitudes to the US bailout designed to unfreeze credit markets. In the first wave of US federal bailout money designed to loosen credi, some bankers had other ideas. John C Hope III, chairman of Whitney Bank, New Orleans, in an address to other Wall St royalty gathered at the Palm Beach Ritz Carlton said;

    “Make more loans? We’re not going to change our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the public sector as they see it to have us make more loans.”

    The author of this article asks “how’s that for arrogance? Mr Hope’s bank received $300 million in taxpayer funded bailout money.”

    The article quotes Mr Walter M.Pressey (president of Boston Private Wealth Management (a healthy bank with an affluent clientele) which received $154 million of US taxpayers bailout monies.

    “With that capital in hand, not only do we feel comfortable that we can ride out the recession, but we also feel that we’ll be in a position to take advantages of opportunities that present themselves once this recession is sorted”

    Author notes, “take advantage indeed. That, in a nutshell is what the plutocracy is all aboout: taking unfair advantage”

    At least a fiscal injection, even if it is patchwork in application, doesnt go into bank coffers to be sat on in the private sector in the wishful thinking that recipient banks can use the funds to buy some other bank cheaply later in the depths of the recession when the buying is cheap.

    Bailout funds need to be on the street now (as lending or spending) and working as fast as possible – and there is some part of that philosophy financial institutions are just not getting, even while they put their hands out eagerly for bailout money.

    No wonder they call it a liquidity trap.

    From: Wall St Times “the same old song” p.29 Jan 27th.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s