Economics

Home Economics Page 5

Argentina Elected A Libertarian Leader, And It Could Happen Here

But it probably won’t.

Argentinians recently voted in Javier Milei to be their President.

Milei has good policies, and he will probably be able to implement a good chunk of them.

This is not just good for Argentinians, it is good news for us. Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.

But we shouldn’t get carried away. Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish list, and not all of his policies are good.  And the circumstances of Milei’s election won’t be repeated in Australia any time soon.

Milei has good policies.
Milei’s party has an exemplary, wide-ranging, libertarian platform promoting both social and economic freedoms. Milei did not appear to walk away from any of this platform in his campaign.  

The campaign naturally focussed on economics, given Argentina’s current crisis.  In his campaigning Milei skilfully educated voters on why a libertarian prescription on monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy is the way to go.  

The lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government

Milei is likely to be able to implement some of his policies.
The formal powers of the Argentinian President are similar to those of the US President, with appointment, veto, and decree powers.

Unlike US Presidents, Argentinian Presidents are in the habit of regularly introducing a budget, so Milei will be better placed to cut government spending than an American President.

Milei will bolster the credibility of libertarian parties in Australia.
We can now point to a libertarian in power in a country with more than 45 million people.

We now have a great counter-point to claims that libertarianism is irrelevant.

Australian libertarians seeking election will be able to say that if libertarians can be elected, and if libertarian policies can be implemented in Argentina, then the same can happen in Australia.

But not all of Milei’s policies are good.
Milei stoked and tapped into anti-woke sentiment, including through supportive references to America’s Trump and Brazil’s Bolsonaro.

This is a problem if it translates into the implementation of illiberal policies, or concentrating on issues of wokeness at the expense of more crucial reform, or if it means Milei has the same regard for the law as Trump and Bolsonaro.

Having a libertarian doing libertarian things in Argentina will bolster the credibility of libertarian policies and parties in Australia.

That said, Milei’s comments cleverly tapped into anti-woke sentiment without committing to do anything illiberal. After all, there’s nothing illiberal about abolishing a Women’s Ministry. So there might be nothing to worry about on this score.

A more clearly disappointing campaign tactic was Milei’s opposition to legalising euthanasia.

But this tactic may well have been a smart move. A large proportion of Argentinians claim to be Catholic, and the Catholic Church is staunchly anti-euthanasia. Argentinian politics, even for presidential elections, involves considerable coalition building, with Milei’s party working with Argentina’s Faith Party. Milei also faced significant criticism from the Church for wanting to slash welfare, so perhaps it was best to concentrate the attack on the Church at its weakest point.

Milei will not be able to implement all of his policy wish-list.
Milei’s alliance of parties will have 38 of the 257 seats in the lower house of the national parliament, and 7 of the 72 seats in the upper house.

Argentina is a federal country, and there is next to no libertarian presence at Argentina’s provincial level.

Many of the circumstances of Milei’s election will not be replicated in Australia.
It seems that Milei was elected because both the traditional left-wing grouping (who were in government) and the traditional right-wing grouping (who were in opposition) were unusually splintered and unpopular. Both groupings also lacked a charismatic leader, with both the incumbent President and Vice President not contesting the election. Such conditions could occur in Australia.


But the main reason Milei was elected was Argentina’s economic malaise. Argentina currently has one of the highest inflation rates in the world, and its economy is shrinking. The latest assessment of Freedom House is damning:

“Aggravated by corruption and political interference, the lack of judicial independence has severely eroded limits on government. Leftist spending measures and price controls distort markets, and government interference still hobbles the financial sector. Fading confidence in the government’s determination to promote or even sustain open markets has discouraged entrepreneurship.”

Freedom House’s assessment of Australia is glowing in comparison.

So Argentina needs a libertarian leader more than Australia does, and hopefully more than Australia ever will.
Milei’s election does not presage a global wave of libertarianism, but it is still great news, not just for Argentinians, but for Australians too. Let’s watch and learn.

Take The White Pill

Did Certain Events Really Take Place The Way They Have Been Presented?

Many readers will be aware of the term ‘red pill’. But for those who are not, it refers to a scene in the 1999 blockbuster The Matrix where the main protagonist, Neo, is presented with the option of continuing to live in his computer-simulated reality by taking the blue pill, or to be exposed to the unsettling truth of his existence by taking the red pill. In the decades since, being ‘red pilled’ has come to refer to waking up to the unsettling realities of our controlled existence.

To take the white pill is to abandon despair and surrender to the optimism of hope.

DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE
In the last few years, use of the pill metaphor to represent different ideologies and worldviews has continued to expand. Yet while many are now aware of red and blue pills, far fewer are aware of black and white pills.

The commonly understood pathway is that we begin in a blue-pilled existence: we accept the world around us as the truth and do not question what is presented before us. Most people spend their entire lives perceiving the world this way – never delving below the surface level. Some of us begin to question the world we see around us: we become red pilled. Is the government really acting in our best interests? Are we truly free? Did certain events really take place the way they have been presented?

The awakening that comes from taking the red pill can often spur someone to action. The realisation that all is not as it seems must be shouted from the rooftops; people need to be woken from their living slumber and see what is really going on. But the reality is that most people want to continue living in the simulation. Challenging your worldview and potentially shattering everything you believe to be true is hard, and that is a journey most people are not willing to take.

THE BLACK PILL
Those who are red pilled can become disillusioned by their failed efforts. Ultimately they believe that nothing matters and any efforts to change are futile: they take the ‘black pill’. They become extreme nihilists. For many, their journey ends here: bitter at the world for failing to see what they see. They withdraw, believing that the living zombies around them deserve this world they have created.

Unfortunately many libertarians, and those who are politically active, fall into this trap. Stuck in a sad, black-pilled existence; determined that they will be further alienated by an increasingly authoritarian world. Looking around, particularly during recent Covid tyranny, it is hard not to agree. News of new, “deadly” Covid strains, incoming global warming lockdowns, 20-minute cities, a growing surveillance state and unending censorship is incredibly depressing to those of us who believe in freedom, prosperity and human enterprise.

ANOTHER WAY
There is one final step on this journey: the ‘white pill’. To take the white pill is to abandon despair and surrender to the optimism of hope. Unlike the blue pilled, who are hopeful due to ignorant optimism, being white pilled requires you to challenge nihilism with reason and inquiry. In other words, it is to become cynical of cynicism and sceptical of scepticism.

we accept the world around us as the truth and do not question what is presented before us.

There is nothing dishonest or unprincipled about taking the white pill. While the blue pill represents optimism due to ignorance, the white pill represents optimism in spite of ignorance. And not only is it ideologically authentic, it is also much more likely to convince others of the merits of freedom and liberty. When you live your life as a beacon of hope and reasoned optimism, others will be naturally drawn to you. When you live a sad and bitter existence, others cannot wait to get away from you.

WALK YOUR OWN WAY
Libertarians might not enjoy much political success, but I don’t particularly care what a bunch of bloated public servants in a fancy room hundreds of miles away from me say – and neither should you. These are people who I have never met and do not relate to in any way. Despite what they may call themselves, they are not my representatives.

Winning seats in parliaments should not be our metric for success; rather living a free and prosperous life. Freedom comes from within, and I know I will always be a free man unless I let them take it from me!

Have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the festive season, free and white pilled.

The Blame Game

SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states

On 1 July 2014, my first day as a Senator, Adelaide’s Advertiser newspaper published an opinion piece I had submitted titled, Shedding the ‘Bludger State’ tag, in which I implored the SA State Government to stop bludging on the other states and start standing on its own two feet.

Then Premier Jay Weatherill responded by calling me ‘an enemy of the state’.

Many South Australians can probably remember the time when more than a dozen of Australia’s top 100 listed companies had their head offices in Adelaide – News Ltd, Fauldings, Southcorp, Elders, Normandy Mining, Adelaide Bank, Adelaide Brighton, Standard Chartered Finance to name just a few. Today there’s just one – Santos (and even Santos is only headquartered in Adelaide because of some vague arrangement).  

At the time of Federation, South Australia led the constitutional debates and had an influential hand in shaping the new Commonwealth of Australia. For decades after, Adelaide was Australia’s Number 3 city – bigger and more prosperous than either Brisbane or Perth. 

Led by Tom Playford, South Australia prospered under the principle of ‘cheap land, cheap power, cheap water, and cheap labour’. Wages were lower than in Sydney and Melbourne, but despite the lower pay packets, South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts. 

Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.

It was an example of genuine competitive federalism – not the pseudo competitive federalism of today in which state governments try to outdo each other enticing companies to set up in their states. 

Since those halcyon days, South Australia has lost each of the competitive edges that made it prosperous. 

First to go was cheap land – thanks to urban planning controls – then water, then centralised wage fixing (waiters, nurses, and factory workers across Australia all had to get the same pay). 

As for power prices, they are now not just the highest in Australia, but some of the highest in the world. 

Last year, the South Australian premier folded like a pack of cards over nuclear power. The idea that he and his Labor colleagues would take on the urban planners, water barons and unions to make SA competitive again is laughable. 

SA is destined to be a mendicant State for a long time to come. 

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke once said, “We’re all Australians, whether we’re from Melbourne or Sydney”. 

Where those from the ‘outlying States’ (as Paul Keating called them) belonged, was anyone’s guess.

When Australia came together as a nation in 1901, Sir Samuel Griffith, nailed it by saying:

“We must not lose sight of the essential condition that this is to be a federation of states and not a single government of Australia. The separate states are to continue as autonomous bodies, surrendering only so much of their power as is necessary for the establishment of a general government to do for them collectively what they cannot do individually for themselves.” 

Sir Samuel Griffith

Those who spend the money should raise the money

The powers given to the Federal Government by the states in 1901 included trade and commerce, corporations, currency, banking, pensions, taxation, foreign affairs, communications, copyright, marriage and family law, quarantine, and defence. 

There was no mention of hospitals, schools, disability services, pink batts, carbon dioxide emissions or many of the other things that federal governments these days decide they want to spend our money on.

Not surprisingly, the first area where the boundaries between state and Federal governments were tested related to tax.

In 1942, all income taxing power was handed to the Federal government for the duration of World War II under the ‘defence’ power of the Constitution. This was intended to be temporary and was to last until the end of the war. But as predictable as the sunrise, when the war ended the Feds did not relinquish their income tax collector role (not that the states wanted to resume income tax collection, but that is not the point).

Since then, the tax revenue balance has continued to move away from the states and towards the Feds. The imbalance which now exists is known as ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’.

South Australians’ quality of life and standard of living were higher than their interstate counterparts. 

Australia has the highest level of vertical fiscal imbalance of any federal country in the world. The Federal government raises over 70% of all government revenues – much more than is required to fund its own operations – while the states don’t raise anywhere near enough to fund theirs. The Feds then make up the states’ shortfall through Commonwealth grants.

This creates a perpetual blame game. Failures at the state level are blamed on the Feds’ lack of funding, and failures at the federal level are blamed on the states’ poor service delivery.

Duplication of health and education bureaucracies alone costs taxpayers billions of dollars, yet the Feds do not run a single hospital or a single school. 

This cannot go on. State and Federal governments should only collect taxes for their own purposes, and taxpayers and consumers should be fully informed as to what is a state tax and what is a Federal tax. Those who spend the money should bear the responsibility of raising it.

This confusing power structure between the states and the Federal government – and between individual states – was emphatically exposed during Covid, with many calling for the abolition of state governments and the formation of one national government.

But as Covid revealed, the Federal government doesn’t have the power it thought it had. The Feds may have the money, but it’s the states that have the power.

Wind Power Industry is a Scam

Is the business concept viable? 

To comprehend the vast folly of the wind power industry, we can ask one logical question: Is the business concept viable? 

Assessing business viability necessitates a comprehensive review of financial projections, operational feasibility, profitability and return on investment (ROI). 

Financial analysis demands meticulous examination of startup costs and operational expenses, versus revenue. 

Operational feasibility assesses practical aspects, evaluating the availability of resources and skilled personnel. 

And profitability and ROI requires the business to generate revenue in a manner that justifies investment. 

Successful businesses meticulously align these factors to achieve sustained success in the free market.

Keep this information in mind as we look at business cases from the wind power industry over the past year.

Financial Trouble 

Markbygden Ett:
The owners of the Markbygden Ett sub-project, part of Europe’s largest onshore wind complex, are undergoing financial restructuring in the Umeå district court, northern Sweden. Facing bankruptcy, the company’s financial struggles stem from an unprofitable 19-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed with Hydro in 2017. The fixed-volume PPA obliges the company to buy power on the spot market during insufficient wind production, incurring costs due to intermittency. Spot prices rise when wind power is low, contributing to substantial losses. 

This exit cost the Danish company $2.2-2.6 billion in penalties.

Siemens Energy AG: 
Siemens Energy AG is facing a substantial downturn, its share price having dropped nearly 70% since June. This is mainly attributed to issues within its wind turbine subsidiary, Siemens Gamesa. The company projects a €4.5bn loss for the year due to quality problems and offshore ramp-up challenges. Additionally, technical faults in onshore turbine models are expected to cost around €1.6bn to rectify. Siemens Gamesa’s CEO highlighted concerns including rotor blade wrinkles and bearing particles, posing risks to critical components. Siemens Energy aimed to address these issues, but struggled to secure guarantees for its order book. This contributed to a €2bn loss in Q3. Germany’s government approved a €15 billion financial package, including €7.5 billion in loan guarantees, to support Siemens Energy in delivering Germany’s renewable projects. However, the company’s challenges persist.

Cancelled Projects 

Ørsted:
The world’s biggest wind power developer received approval to develop wind power off the New Jersey coast in June this year. It terminated both developments five months later due to soaring costs. This exit cost the Danish company $2.2-2.6 billion in penalties. 

Avangrid:
Avangrid, a member of the Iberdrola Group, is terminating power purchase agreements (PPAs) for the Park City Wind offshore project in Connecticut, citing industry challenges like inflation and supply chain disruptions. This follows their similar move with the Commonwealth Wind project in Massachusetts, resulting in a $48 million penalty. Avangrid plans to rebid both projects. These decisions align with a broader trend of wind project cancellations and challenges nationwide, including requests to government for rate increases above those previously agreed.

Siemens Energy AG is facing a substantial downturn, its share price having dropped nearly 70% since June. 

Fortescue:
Fortescue Metals Group has abandoned its Uaroo Renewable Energy Hub project in Western Australia, once a key part of its green energy strategy. The multi-billion-dollar initiative aimed to build 340 wind turbines and a solar farm, generating up to 5.4 gigawatts. The project’s termination, marked by last month’s approval application withdrawal, signifies a shift in Fortescue’s commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.

Vattenfall:
Swedish energy giant Vattenfall has halted plans for the Norfolk Boreas wind development, a crucial part of the UK’s green energy goals. The project, intended to power 1.5 million homes, faced a 40% cost increase due to global gas price surges and supply chain challenges. After winning a government contract with a record-low bid, Vattenfall deemed the project unprofitable amid changing market conditions. The decision incurred a £415 million penalty. This is still seen as prudent, considering lack of future profitability. Vattenfall urged the UK government to adapt the financial framework, and the government capitulated, agreeing to increase payments for offshore electricity generation. This intervention raised hopes for the Norfolk Boreas project’s resumption.

Verdict

These examples highlight the vulnerability of wind power development projects. This is particularly evident in offshore projects. 

Wind power does not meet the criteria for a viable business concept.

It Takes Two To Tango

Jim Chalmers

Australia’s centrally planned economy is failing – intergenerational wealth gaps are widening, economic prospects are waning, and the side effects from the Reserve Bank’s (RBA) medicine are becoming worse than the disease. 

Inflation is a scourge, insidiously stealing wealth from those least able to protect themselves, and it benefits the least needy. 

We hear all sorts of explanations as to why inflation is not the government’s fault: the RBA was too loose with monetary policy, AHPRA failed to regulate bank lending standards effectively; hell, even consumers themselves were blamed by former Governor Phillip Lowe.  

But Lowe is gone now and the RBA board under Chalmer’s new darling, Michele Bullock, has continued to hike rates with a 25 basis point increase last week. It’s high time the government understood that fighting inflation is going to require some sacrifice of its own. As Dimitri Burshtein explained, more tax doesn’t make for better government; likewise, more government spending doesn’t curb inflation.   

Dumb and Dumber

The RBA effectively only has one instrument to fight inflation – and that is to increase the cash rate, the thinking being that if borrowing becomes more expensive then demand will be sapped from the wider economy. Australia is a land of high household debt, and it’s largely mortgage holders who feel the pinch when rates rise.

Australia desperately needs synergy between the government and RBA on inflation

What is truly disappointing about the current economic climate is the complete lack of synergy among our central planners – and their approach to the drivers of inflation. The Government seeks to relieve cost of living pressures with subsidies, welfare and spending, while the RBA is slamming the brakes on. We also cannot hope to tame inflation if infrastructure spending remains at record highs and the bureaucracy continues to grow (Georgia shows what must be done).      

Where credit is due

The ‘lender class’ are older Australians who have paid off their homes and are now seeking better returns on their investments – a higher cash rate delivers them higher returns (albeit reduced in real terms by inflation). Meanwhile, mortgage holders only see their costs rise as rates climb, squeezing their already tightening budgets. Downstream from this, renters are slugged as their landlords pass on higher mortgage repayments amidst low rental stock.  

The ‘lendee class’ is getting smashed on two fronts – inflation on the cost of goods and services, while the RBA’s rate hikes squeeze them even more. 

There has to be a better way.

Government to the rescue

The Federal Government needs to take three key steps to reduce the impact of inflation on the ‘lendee class’.  

  • Reduce or remove excise tax on fuel, alcohol and tobacco   

Measures that decrease the cost of items are needed, not inflationary welfare that only continues to drive demand. Fuel excise is particularly important due to its impact on the transportation costs of goods. Meanwhile alcohol and tobacco excise disproportionately affect lower income earners. 

  • Reduce GST, or expand the criteria for exempt items

The Goods and Services Tax disproportionately affects lower income workers as the tax applies as a flat rate on all eligible items, many of which are essential. This will impact state government revenue but with many household budgets at breaking point, they too will have to learn to live within their means.

Inflation is a scourge, insidiously stealing wealth from those least able to protect themselves

  • Sensible energy policy

A thriving economy needs cheap and abundant energy, with energy being a key input across the supply chain, not to mention household budgets. Australia must abandon its 2050 net-zero and 2030 emissions reduction targets. We should welcome investment in coal fired power and natural gas, which we have in abundance. Longer term we must embrace nuclear power. 

Not only would these policies provide genuine relief for those suffering the most from inflation, but they would actually reduce the costs of production and business, helping the RBA rein in inflation. 

Australia desperately needs synergy between the government and RBA on inflation, and the attempts of Chalmers and co to direct public scorn onto the central bank in order to save face are a great shame. If Australian households are expected to do it tough for a while, it’s high time our government accepted the same responsibility. After all, it takes two to tango.  

Letting The Market Work With Immigration

Letting The Market Work With Immigration

The Immigration Debate in Australia: Assessing Infrastructure and Policy for Sustainable Growth

Every few years, Australia has a major debate about immigration. Sometimes due to people arriving by boats and claiming refugee status, at other times by a public figure saying something about a ‘Big Australia’, it is a subject on which most people have an opinion.

The current debate is a bit different. The Covid border closures and lockdowns meant immigration ceased. With no immigrants, backpackers, foreign students or Pacific farm workers, some industries ground to a halt.

The debate now is not so much about whether immigration is needed, but whether our infrastructure can cope with the numbers.

Because governments are no better at setting prices than choosing immigrants, it could also use an auction system to set visa prices.

That debate is not helped by the fact that Australia does not have a coherent immigration policy. In the post-Covid environment, the Government is simply making short-term decisions to address immediate needs based on industry pressure. It is also deliberately boosting immigration to avoid a decline in GDP for two consecutive quarters. 

From a libertarian perspective, immigration is one of the few issues in which governments have a role. While free trade in goods and services are no-brainers, the free movement of labour is not sustainable in a welfare state. The question is, how could a market operate? 

The current approach involves the government not only deciding how many people the country should admit, but what kinds of people. This equates to central planning, with bureaucrats purporting to know what the economy requires. Needless to say, this is not remotely comparable to the employment decisions of hundreds of thousands of businesses and individuals. 

A better approach would before the government to set broad parameters, while the market does the rest. This could be achieved by charging a significant fee for residence visas (there is a fee already but it’s just $4640) and then getting out of the way.

This idea originated from the Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker, who recommended it as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration in America and the UK.  What he proposed is for the government to set a price (or prices) according to how many people it wished to admit, then allow everyone who can pay that price to come in apart from obvious exceptions like terrorists. That is, the government would not be picking and choosing who to admit.

Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker
Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker

He also suggests the program would reduce opposition to immigration by eliminating the sense that immigrants were getting ‘a free ride’. Fees would contribute to the cost of maintaining and renewing infrastructure that others had paid for.

Becker argues that as well as being a revenue raiser for governments, the policy would ensure that only the most productive and skilled immigrants would be attracted. Having paid the fee, the immigrants would be committed to their adopted country and keen to make a go of it.

Industries or employers short of workers could cover or subsidise the entry fees of those they wish to employ, while regions keen to boost their populations could do the same.

Fees could be reduced or waived for a number of bona fide refugees fleeing persecution, while those who support the entry of more refugees could raise funds to pay their entry fees.

Because governments are no better at setting prices than choosing immigrants, it could also use an auction system to set visa prices. This would allow the market to operate via the price mechanism.

From a libertarian perspective, immigration is one of the few issues in which governments have a role.

Importantly, payment of the fee should only allow for permanent residence. Access to welfare (unemployment, etc)should be reserved for citizens, with citizenship restricted to those who had established themselves over a number of years, share our values of freedom and democracy, and have demonstrated their desire to build a long-term future in Australia.

Those unable to find work may have their visa cancelled and be subject to deportation, although short term benefits might be justified on the grounds that it was covered by the fee they paid.

This system would ensure intending permanent immigrants were well aware of the need to gain employment.The most qualified and employable person in a family would be first to pay the fee and take up residence, working to save the funds for other family members. Over time, families would be reunited in Australia as they are now, except that each member would have made a valuable contribution to the economy.

Temporary immigrants (tourists, backpackers, seasonal workers, students, etc) would not be required to pay the fee unless they sought permanent residence (as many foreign students do.) This approach would apply market forces to the selection of immigrants. With markets infinitely better than governments at allocating resources, the outcome for Australia could only be positive.

Other People’s Money

Ross Gittins, Sydney Morning Herald economics editor

Philosophy #1: Living On Other People’s Money Is Unwise

When reading the news and opinion, I am frequently mindful of the idea of other people’s money and the perceptive words of French economist Frederic Bastiat, who wrote that “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”

I thought of Bastiat when reading a recent opinion column by Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.  There really needs to be a better lexigraphy to reflect the differences between the economic writings of Bastiat and Gittins.  After all, we don’t call plumbers aquatic surgeons.


Philosophy #2: Exploiting Other People’s Money Is Good

In Gittins’ latest, he again advocates for higher taxes, because “… paying tax is good and, for better government, we should pay more”.  Evidence be damned, that ever more expensive government has delivered ever worse outcomes – from education, to health, to defence.  But for some, it is axiomatic that we must tax other people’s money more. 

Messrs Gittins and Keating: you are welcome to voluntarily pay higher tax.  But until you do, please don’t demand that others are forcibly required to do so.

As long as it is other people’s taxes. The funny thing is that those who advocate higher taxes never seem to volunteer to pay higher taxes themselves.  No doubt, the ATO would accept voluntary contributions, but that is not the game.  Higher tax advocates don’t want to pay higher taxes themselves.  They just want other people’s money so that they can “live at the expense of everyone else” as Bastiat predicted.


Call To Authority

Gittins starts his case with a call to authority saying that “former top econocrat did something no serving econocrat is allowed to do, and no politician is game to do: he set out the case for us to pay higher, not lower, taxes.”  That former econocrat is Michael Keating (unrelated to Paul Keating) and he delivered his remarks at the Australia Institute’s revenue summit at Parliament House in Canberra.  That’s the Australia Institute that has never found a tax or regulation they did not like.

Keating and Gittins are reflecting what is known as bureaucrat logic: that increasing input delivers better outcomes.

Frederic Bastiat. Frugal with other people's money
Classical liberal economist, Frederic Bastiat. He cautioned frugality with other people’s money.

Permit some definitions:

  • Inputs are resources going in – such as dollars.
  • Outputs are things that are produced with the inputs – such as patients treated or students graduated.
  • Outcomes are the results – such as healthy citizens and kids who can read.

But for some, it is axiomatic that taxes must be increased. 


No Linear Relationship Between Inputs and Outcomes

Bureaucrats, econocrats and many politicians seem to believe that, despite evidence upon evidence to the contrary, there is a linear relationship between inputs and outcomes.  Increase education spending and you get more literate kids.  Huge increases in Gonski funding delivering worse education outcomes is just a bump in the road.  Even more is required.

Messrs Gittins and Keating: you are welcome to voluntarily pay higher tax.  But until you do, please don’t demand that others are forcibly required to do so.

As American writer Harlan Ellison said: “The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.”  There seems to be a high concentration of both in Canberra.

What Housing Crisis?

Queen Anne House

There is no housing crisis.

Most of the recent increases in rents simply reflect that the prices of all things are going up. General prices have gone up by 5.4 per cent over the past year and rents have gone up by 7.6 per cent.  If monetary policy had been implemented properly, general prices would have risen by around 2.5 per cent and rents would have risen by around 4.6 per cent.

Over the past decade the average annual rise in rents has been a measly 1.5 per cent.

Housing in Australia is becoming less crowded, not more.  Over recent years the average number of people per residence has fallen slightly, and there has been little change in the average number of square metres per residence.

It may well be that we are in a homelessness crisis, given reports of increased demand for homelessness services throughout 2023.  But this does not mean there is a housing crisis more broadly, or that we should be attempting to lower rents for everyone.  Homelessness warrants policy tailored to those at risk.

Government should do nothing about housing.  

Stamp duties, land taxes and local government rates should be abolished.
Current negative gearing rules and CGT exemptions should remain.

Doing nothing means not adopting a pro-development policy stance.

Government’s slow release of residential land, and its restraint on urban infill, may be optimal.

Land holders do not currently own the right to build as high as they wish, or to build residential properties on land not zoned as residential.  Effectively, these rights are owned by the general citizenry. It could be that the general citizenry wants agricultural land on the outskirts of cities to remain agricultural, and low-rise suburbs to remain low-rise.  We could find out if development restrictions reflect the wishes of the general citizenry by introducing trading into our planning systems.

It is reasonable for local government to charge developers the full cost of infrastructure for a new suburb.  After all, the alternative is for local government to go into debt and recoup these costs through taxation of future residents.

Federation House

Governments should not provide public housing, as government has no inherent advantages in constructing housing or being a landlord.

Government should not subsidise housing, either through public housing or subsidies to private operators providing ‘affordable’ housing.  Such subsidy arrangements inevitably deliver different degrees of assistance to people who are equally deserving, depending on the vagaries of waiting lists and where the public or affordable housing is offered.

Government welfare should not be delivered as rent assistance. Under current arrangements, if an individual moves from one rental property to a cheaper rental property, or to a property where no rent is charged, the individual receives less from government. Government should not discourage such economising.

When determining its policy on migration, government should not account for the impact of migrants on rents and house prices.  These are impacts on private, voluntary transactions.  We should remember that, when a migrant bids up a rent or a house price, more often than not this involves a benefit to an Australian landlord or home-owner.  What migration policy should take into account is its impacts in the public realm, like the congestion on public assets like roads.

Housing in Australia is becoming less crowded, not more.

Finally, tax policy should be blind as to whether an asset is a housing asset or not.

Stamp duties on housing should be abolished, as should all stamp duties, because any taxation of transactions discourages the mutual benefits of voluntary trade.

Land taxes and local government rates should be abolished. Such taxes discourage improvements to the land itself, such as efforts to improve soil quality. These taxes also discourage housing improvements, as they inevitably stray into taxing what lies on the land.  And like all wealth and income taxes, these taxes discourage working and saving more than broad-based consumption taxation.

Deductions should continue to be available when losses are made, whether these losses are from investing in rental property or from other investments. In other words, current negative gearing rules should be maintained.

Capital gains tax is a bad tax, so anything that reduces its application, including the capital gains tax exemption for owner-occupied housing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for individuals, should remain.

The rise and fall of prices goes hand in hand with the allocation of scarce resources to those most willing to pay for them.  This phenomenon is something to be appreciated rather than lamented.  

In essence, the rents we see are the right rents. If governments were to adopt a ‘do nothing’ attitude to housing, we would be better off.

The Death of Li Keqiang

1
Li Keqiang

Li Keqiang, China’s former Prime Minister, passed away on 27th October 2023, at the age of 68. His death has plunged many in China and around the world into mourning, particularly those who supported his vision of greater economic freedom rather than increased state control in China, and towards more political diversity instead of ever-increasing centralised power.

Li Keqiang was widely regarded as a successor to Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening-up policy, favouring reform-oriented policies and continued economic liberalisation within the framework of the Chinese socialist market economy. Throughout his tenure he was a steadfast advocate for economic liberalisation, transparency, and international cooperation. His economic philosophy, often summarised as “Likonomics,” was characterised by avoiding large-scale government stimulus measures, focusing on reducing debt levels within the economy, especially in the shadow banking system and amongst local governments, and pushing for structural reforms to let market forces play a decisive role in the economy.

For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability.

Despite his concerted efforts, Li Keqiang faced an ongoing struggle with the more dominant state-centric approach favoured by Supreme Leader Xi Jinping. Li’s push for economic reforms often met with a level of centralised power not seen since the death of Chairman Mao. Xi aggressively consolidated power, even amending the Constitution of China to grant himself the potential for a lifelong presidency. Although Li sometimes seemed sidelined, his commitment to his reformist principles never wavered as he continued to advocate for economic modernisation and the growth of private enterprise within the confines of the prevailing political climate.

The passing of Li Keqiang carries weight that goes beyond the loss of a political figure; it symbolises the dimming of a progressive era in China’s storied journey toward modernisation. As a top-tier leader with a solid background in economics, he championed a new direction in Chinese policy – a route lined with broader economic and political freedoms. For the many Chinese who share his dream, his death sharply underscores the complex and often difficult political realities that shape the nation’s progression towards liberalisation.

During Li Keqiang’s time as Prime Minister, clashes between two opposing ideologies were occasionally evident – Xi Jinping’s assertive centralisation of power on one side and Li’s advocacy for economic decentralisation on the other. The 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, held in October 2022, signalled a decisive shift, affirming the dominance of Xi’s vision. It was a defining moment that resulted in the thorough marginalisation of Li and his fellow reform-minded colleagues, signalling the end of the reformist era they had supported.

Li Keqiang’s legacy will be recorded in the annals of China’s contemporary history as a testament to ‘what might have been’ in an era of tightened control. His consistent efforts to liberalise the economy—where private enterprise could operate with greater autonomy and where market forces were allowed a more decisive role — resonated with many who envisioned a China more integrated with the global economic system. As China’s second-in-command, Li’s voice for moderate reform provided a counterpoint to the prevailing trend of centralisation, offering a ray of hope for a middle path that might lead China towards a more open society and a more resilient economy.

For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability. The sorrow that has accompanied his passing goes beyond a simple tribute to a leader’s memory. It reflects a profound collective longing to preserve his vision for China – a vision of a balanced economy that supports both individual and economic freedoms in society. In the wake of his passing, his parting words resonate with particular poignancy: “While people work, heaven watches. Heaven has eyes.” These words, ultimately omitted from the official record, now take on a profound significance as the nation reflects on the end of his tenure and his life.

As the nation arrives at a pivotal juncture in its history, this period of mourning also presents a vital opportunity for reflection on how China will navigate the intricate balance between preserving internal stability, managing relations with Taiwan and the Western world, and confronting the myriad challenges posed by regional conflicts and global economic instability.

Smaller Government: Georgia Shows It’s Achievable

To any true libertarian, Government regulation in Australia feels increasingly suffocating. This feeling is backed by statistics. According to the Parliamentary Education office the Australian Government added an average of 109 new laws every year from 1901 to 2013. Since 2013, that increased to 139 new laws per year.

Typically, when the Government is criticised for its interference in our private lives and businesses, it justifies this by drawing a comparison with European countries. Sure, Australia has unsustainable state and federal deficits, business closures exceed new businesses, there is increasing crime and homelessness, a housing affordability and supply crisis, plus a plethora of worsening social and economic statistics. But some of our taxes are lower than Germany, we are not as broke as Greece, and citizens are freer than in North Korea. Therefore, apparently, everything is fantastic.

The Government has a point, though. Looking at the nations of the G20, most are facing far bigger problems than Australia, and none are moving in a libertarian direction. All are increasing taxation, expanding the size and scope of the public sector, and raising the difficulty of operating a private business. There are almost no recent examples of a country achieving superior outcomes by moving in the opposite direction; except, perhaps, for the small nation of Georgia.

… first task was to cull the regulation that was facilitating the widespread corruption and strangling the Georgian economy.

Georgia was the birthplace of Joseph Stalin and formerly part of the Soviet Union. A decade after the Soviet Union’s collapse, it was a basket case. The government was insolvent; the country was rife with corruption, crime and poverty; the police force was essentially a mafioso street gang; infrastructure was crumbling; utilities such as power and water only functioned occasionally.

In 2003 there was a revolution and Mikhail Saakashvili was elected to the presidency. The usual gaggle of globalist socialist technocrats showered Saakashvili with the usual ruinous recommendations straight from the book ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’: take out impossibly huge IMF loans, increase taxation and impose ruthless austerity.

Shockingly, Saakashvili declined the loans and socialistc advice; incurring ridicule and disapproval from the EU, US and IMF. Instead, he immediately cut taxes by 70%.

Mikheil Saakashvili. Third President of Georgia. 2008-2013.

As a result, rather than deepening the country’s bankruptcy – as predicted by the IMF – tax revenue doubled in just the first year. Over Saakashvili’s two terms, the economy went on to quadruple in size while tax revenue increased 1200% and poverty decreased by 75%.

Saakashvili appointed a committed, renowned libertarian, Kakha Bendukidze, as the Minister of Economy and Reform Coordination. Bendukidze was no academic bureaucrat; he was a self-made multi-centi-millionaire. He had a degree in biology and made his fortune creating a chemical manufacturing empire in Russia.

Bendukidze’s first task was to cull the regulation that was facilitating the widespread corruption and strangling the Georgian economy. The head of every government agency was forced to justify their existence to him, like contestants on the TV show, Shark Tank. Bendukidze had authority to eliminate any agency on the spot.

Among the first of the Agencies to be eliminated was the police force. The force was determined to be so corrupt, and so distrusted by the populace, that the only solution was to fire everyone. So that is what they did. Somehow they managed to quickly form a new police force. The whole exercise earned the trust and respect of citizens, so the streets became safe. Within just three years Georgia was ranked among the top countries in the world for personal safety.

Shockingly, Saakashvili declined the loans and socialistc advice; incurring ridicule and disapproval from the EU, US and IMF. Instead, he immediately cut taxes by 70%.

In his first two months, Bendukidze slashed approximately 70% of regulations and the majority of government agencies. He and Saakashvili also instituted a policy that no new regulation could be added unless two existing regulations were repealed. In total they achieved a 90% reduction in regulations, resulting in Georgia being recognised as the top reforming country in the world by the World Bank, and leaping from 137th to 8th in the Ease of Doing Business rankings. It also went from ranking among the most corrupt countries in Europe, to 3rd least corrupt.

They not only cut tax rates; they cut the tax code down to just six taxes, and amended the constitution so that the only way to increase taxation was via a referendum. This gave confidence to the international investment community that Georgia’s reforms were stable and reliable, resulting in a quadrupling of the rate of international investment.

Georgia represents a compelling case study in contemporary politics and economics. It was brought to ruin by Marxism, then revived by the unapologetic application of libertarian principles and free market capitalism.