Welcome to Finance and Fury, the Furious Friday edition. Last Furious Friday episode – started on a thought experiment – looking at the reversal of the trends in Monetary policy – who knows if these would work and make for a better economy – these were:
- Separate commercial and investment banking
- Remove reliance on a debt fuelled economy – reforming central banks to remove inflation targeting as a monetary policy
All of these are at the monetary Level – solution isn’t the monetary policy solely – whilst I think that most monetary solutions are a major part of the problem – This week – we will be going through the fiscal side – or governmental or regulatory side –
- Focus will be on Supply Side Policies
- help encourage investment and spending at the business level
- because interest rate cuts are ineffective in boosting spending and investment alone – especially if firms are too reluctant to invest or consumers are stuck paying back higher levels of mortgages – instead they have been taking on more debt which hasn’t been fuelling economic growth as theorised – as debt hasn’t been used productively – due to low opportunity cost for interest rates
- Issues with the economy are structural areas – on the fiscal side in this episode – looking at:
- Reverse the trends in regulations and increase supply side thinking
- Enforce anti-competitive behaviours – i.e. monopolistic practices
To start with – Reverse the trends in regulations and increase supply side thinking
Supply side thinking and deregulation go hand in hand – provides another way of thinking about a solution to depressions or underperforming economy – rather than increasing the money supply even further in an aim to boost spending – which is demand side – Supply Side – all about boost domestic demand by cutting taxes and reducing regulations –
- Aim is increasing the supply (companies) and making the job market more competitive – allowing greater number of companies demanding workers – over time should help to increase wages and spending = economic growth –
- not trickledown economics – which doesn’t exist – covered this in an episode in the past – The Myth of trickle-down economics – originally a term used by journalists and Democrats to discredit these policies – but repeat something false enough and it becomes the truth
Summary of why this theory may work better than the demand side economic theories that have determined governmental policies – problems with demand
- Keynes -stimulus to boost aggregate demand is only really effective in relatively closed economies (why they tried tariffs back in 1930 – made the economic slump worse though)
- In the modern economy – with free capital flows, freedom spending and globalization = made most of the stimulus has been in fact relatively ineffective
- Money can flow off shore – or individuals may not spend domestically when given stimulus checks
- Created a situation where the multiplier effect has been small – indeed negligible – and the stimulus economic effects have been rather poor
- Especially when debt funded – so these policies can hardly be justified – I don’t think the answer lies in yet more Keynesism, anymore than it necessarily lies in printing yet more money
- But yet Governments are getting more debts to stimulate the economy – old Economists still love this idea – But how is this money ever repaid? Not their problem – dead before bill is due
- Meant to boost business demand because people on average have more money – all it has done is fuel house prices – as lending is going towards this
- Screwed the younger generation – and is having diminishing marginal returns to economic output as debt levels grow
- What is a potential solution? To look at reversing the trend – looking at the supply side and removing the thought of reliance of governments for economic growth
- Doesn’t aim for artificial boost of demand – but create real GDP output growth that is sustainable (not just inflationary from increase in prices through expanding money supply)
Solutions to problem
- We need to look the structural causes of the underperformance of western economies right now
- And we have to bear in mind that the one reason the economic growth is sluggish is not just that there is a lack of aggregate demand, there are three other major problems.
- One is the problem of uncertainty and lack of confidence in the business community, which is stopping cash rich firms from investing within western nations – also with low interest rates – they get lots of debt and do share buy backs at the large corporate sector
- The other is the serious competition from the Asian end of the world and that competition makes it very hard to create jobs and increase wage growth – especially as regulations in each country is no equal – incentivised companies to more jobs offshore
- Massive companies turning free market competition into more monopolistic competition – this undermines the whole system of supply side
- And we have to bear in mind that the one reason the economic growth is sluggish is not just that there is a lack of aggregate demand, there are three other major problems.
- Solutions to these problems are structural rather than what most in the economics departments see as focusing on fiscal monetary policy (stimulus) – which requires more structural implementation (government departments or taxes) to hand money out
- Need to incentivise companies to come back to Australia and western nations – and incentivise supply rather than disincentivise through uncompetitive business environments
Rather than giving people money – aim is to Increase how much money people have – two sides to this – decreasing taxes and increasing wage growth and employment opportunity
- At the individual level – reduce taxes – or flat tax rates – Taxes are Government revenues $474bn p.a. estimated
- Income Taxes – how much disposable incomes are reduced by – Currently $218bn
- Pay average of 38% tax, then say you pay now pay 20%, earning $200k = $36k less tax
- Argument – they will save it all – true that they may save most, but spending still increases
- Income Taxes – how much disposable incomes are reduced by – Currently $218bn
- Is it better for governments to increase taxes to turn around and pay this out to people? Or is it better to just collect less tax?
- Increase PP – Consumption and transfers – also eat away at peoples disposable incomes
- Stamp Duty – property taxes $52bn
- GST (VAT other countries) – $132bn
- Excise/custom duties – Tobacco $12.5b, alcohol $5.7b, fuel $19.5b – Adds increased COL almost $38bn, $1800 per Adult
- Where do wages come from in the private sector? Companies revenues – Increase wages – just pay them more? Not if the money isn’t there to pay – either lower wages, or less staff
- Company tax rate – Currently $90bn
- Payroll tax – One hidden tax paid by companies who employ people once they meet a criteria
- Changes each state – 4-6% on average on taxable wages – if a company pays you more, they get taxed more
- Incentive for companies to not increase staff wages, and also if they cant then their costs increase
- Stats: $23.8bn was collected under this last year – but growth in tax slowing (6%-2%) Companies that might move through threshold are holding off (reduces growth rate of larger companies) – cant just start a second on either – related entities
- Demand for labour – need more companies in operation – competing for people to hire
- Cant work under high tax environment though – stifles businesses employing more people
- Specialised labour – if a low number of people who can do something = low supply
- Additional element – Increase diversity of supply – Increase PPP – Goods that cost less over time – Think about costs (and size) of TVs 15 years ago, to today
- What you do see an increase in costs with are things that we can make cheaper – Technology yes, houses no
- Here is where it all comes undone – these goods can be produced overseas – as these jobs can be outsourced OS –
- Where Deregulations to the business world is required – for the economy but not the financial system – one area that needs more regulation and separation
- More regulations – or the trend of ever increasing regulations doesn’t give much confidence to companies – or people who wish to start a company – Confidence and increased investment come hand in hand
- Strong political direction to be business friendly helps to attract companies – Israel is an example
- Politicians don’t have clear direction on anything – can barely explain the policies and outcomes
- No long-term plan beyond the next election cycle – issue with the political trend – they need to seem busy to justify their jobs – which means passing legislation – 90% approval rate = 180 new laws or changes to legislation every year – not to de-legislate – but more and more – when two of the leading industries growth in employment come from government workers or compliance workers – you have a problem in the economy – not productive in producing new goods or services
- Promising to have stability in legislation – Leavings things alone helps to build confidence– uncertainty is the worst thing for any market – but if politicians aren’t legislating – then it is hard to justify a $200k+ salary each year which you fund
- Boost Aggregate Demand – Create jobs – Improve business and consumer confidence.
- Irony is that the black market economy can still help to boost an economy – back in the 80s in Florida with cocaine – banks had negative interest rates – Everyone was spending more as the illegal cash was spent on their businesses – or investing more – personal investments form part of ‘savings’ in GDP – but allows for companies to have more capital to hire more people, pay them more, increase their long term productivity –
- Increase productivity – less regulation allows for competition internationally – Has a few components, but measures the ‘bang for your buck’ for how much gets done – Technology, labour, capital
- Labour – Jobs – either lose them through holding on (and subsidising) – or building new technologies that help to facilitate the work that will inevitably be lost – we are in a global economy – like it or not, have to be competitive with other nations
- Forcing regulation for labour laws hurts – collective bargaining is great, no problem – but not at the national level where it can be forced onto the economy about no feedback on to what is the affordable rate for a role
- Why a lot of places are closed on Sundays or operate limited hours on weekends – double time and a half
- Those who work in the company – speak out to the bosses – that is who can help your grievances –
- When whole industries get forced into the same regulations – it monopolises the employment into a few bigger places that can afford it – for a little while – eventually more policy is passed – help to subsidise them through tax payer funds (rather than just cutting their costs of regulations) – they go out of business
- In business/free market – if you require subsidies to survive – not a business providing increasing value (growth)
- All of the above fails if you have larger corporate powers – Large companies are almost socialist in nature – merging of state with companies – where companies have protection and barriers to entry
- This is where I have changed my thinking over the years – I used to be very much free market – to the libertarian side – but realised that under a fully de-regulated world leads to companies ruling us instead of governments – similar to what has happened in the financial systems or central banking sectors of the economy over the past 100 years
- The US has a good bit of legislation called the Sherman Antitrust Act – 1890 – broadly prohibits (1) anticompetitive agreements and (2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market
- Major cases back in the early days – Standard Oil was one of the biggest ones in 1911 – same year America tobacco and GE –
- Next major one was in 1999 with Microsoft – and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple – acting like thugs forcing companies to either use versions of MSO and IE or have non-working computer and software’s for distribution – were found guilty – without this – Apple was likely going to go out of business – as they were in constant lawsuits with MS and had to use their MS
- But since then – the legislation hasn’t been well enforced- or doesn’t go far enough
- Large companies also reduce the competition for employment – you might have the same number of jobs in the market – but if they are all with Amazon – no competitions and they can pay what they want
The goldilocks zone of regulations – not too hot but not too cold –
Too hot – or too much – you get a situation where you do get monopolies anyway – companies are forced to merge together –
- But too much regulation is bad = Corporatocracy -term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests – It is a form of Plutocracy – and this has been increasing over the years – helping monopolise companies- and become a self-feeding echo chamber between large corporate interests/lobbyists and politicians – who solidify legislation that while hurt all businesses to a limited extent – those at the top are hurt less or have the budget to hire the lawyers to get into the loopholes –
- companies want to survive – so they merge together as the environment gets harsher – like in nature the largest animals tend to survive longer due to being at the top of the food chain – eats up everything else
- But then the environment gets harsher – the lions start cannibalising themselves – until one is left – then nothing left to eat but here some humans then have to feed it – which is the government
- Example – when tech giants are okay for a tax on AI or robotic workers – why? Would cost them more – but not as much as a start up or smaller business that cannot compete – so kill off the competition
- Too cold – or no regulation – similar situation happens but for different reasons – no protections and you get pricing rackets or forced buyouts – corporate form of Mexican cartel merger
- Solution – easing regulations to make it an even playing field – but enforcing anti-competitive behaviours –
Why I think these will work – You know what is better to spend your money on – companies need to be able to be flexible and be competitive
Individuals are the best judge for what activity will improve their lives – on average. Some people make poor choices – but learning form them lets people grow – it is part of life – similar to the corporate world – but when large company failures are rewarded with bailouts and government backing – creating zombie companies – not free market – just lets small companies fail and large companies artificially thrive
Why I don’t think these will work – too much money involved with large companies and donors to political parties – also de-regulation puts a lot of Government out of work – cant have that
Also – puts the economy outside of the governments hands
Thank you for listening to today’s episode. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/