coljac
Colin Jacobs in, on and about the Internet
  • Entries
  • Comment
  • Popular
Recent Posts
  • Data retention TV spot...
  • Conroy’s done it again...
  • Quit Facebook Day...
  • Why I joined the Greens...
Recent Comments
  • Andy Smith You make perfect sense of course. ...
  • Web Filter Marvelous website. Reditted!...
  • An Idle Dad Thanks for the response BTW. I've b...
  • Andy Smith That all looked rather fun!...
Popular Articles
  • Superfreakonomics and bad incentives (10)
  • Blurring the lines (9)
  • Why I joined the Greens (7)
  • Hey, Tweeter. You're fired! (6)
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Writing
  • China Blog

Lack of Interest

Posted by Colin in Opinion, Politics on 12 12th, 2007 | no responses

If interest rates are to be considered a political football, the 2007 Federal election was the Grand Final. They have becomes such a fixture of economic discussion that’s it’s hard to imagine we’ll ever move past it, but I’m hoping this was the last time they will feature so prominently in an election debate. So let’s put the issue to bed.

The Coalition were guilty of misleading the public on nearly all aspects of the way role interest rates play in our economy. In 2004 they made as much hay as they could out of this, and paid a price for it. Why couldn’t they resist the temptation? Well, we all know that Australia is awash in a sea of debt. The numbers certainly attest to the fact that Aussies were sensitive to interest rates in their political leanings.

The following graph (stolen shamelessly from Possum Comitatus) shows how closely the opinion polls tracked interest rates, and shows what would have had to happen for the ALP to lose the election. If there were be any doubts about the potency of interest rates as a political issue, this certainly shakes them. Cause and effect are of course by no means certain in this sort of analysis, but it’s clear the interest rate hikes didn’t help the coalition one iota.

Unfortunately, since Latham’s days, the ALP has implicitly or explicitly bought into the interest-rates-as-an-indicator-of-economic-gravitas line. Now that we are over the line, though, are interest rates neutralized as an issue? Labor has it’s “17% mortgage rate”, the Coalition have their broken promise and six interest rate hikes in a row. Now even the most disinterested amongst us knows that the Liberal party does not, in fact, posesss an interest-rate supressing magic wand. Let’s admit that the Federal Government doesn’t control interest rates. Here are the facts.

1. Despite political campaigns, the government has no control over interest rates. The Reserve bank sets them in accordance with its mandate to keep inflation below 3% (higher interest rates cub spending and so help to lower demand and keep inflation under control).

2. The historical data don’t suggest that Labor has a worse record on interest rates. Under the last Labor government, cash interest rates peaked at 19% under Hawke but only 7.9% under Keating. Under Fraser, interest rates peaked at 21% in April 1982. Mortgage interest rates hit the following highs: Whitlam, 10.38%; Fraser, 13%; Hawke, 17%; Keating, 12%.

3. Despite Howard’s mantra of “17%”, the fact is that mortgage rates were capped by regulation when he was Fraser’s treasurer. It was Labor that derugulated the banking industry.

4. Talk of deficits and surpluses is also misleading. Surpluses are a sign that taxation is outstripping spending, indicating a lack of sufficient investment in infrastructure. Deficits are clearly correct policy when the economy is in recession. Promising to keep interest rates low by running surpluses is not sensible fiscal policy. In this day and age, Government borrowing in any case comes from global financial markets and will have little effect on interest rates domestically.

5. Even for mortgage holders, it’s not the interest rate that matters per se, but the impact interest payments have on their disposable incomes. Australians were paying more interest under Howard than under Keating because debt levels are so high.

Finally, the rhetoric of Howard was often about “wage pressure”. This obviously means keeping your wages low as the economy grows. I don’t know what this can mean except keeping wealth growth as much as possible in the share market and as little as possible amongst wage earners.

The economy is a legitimate political issue, of course. It’s time to put aside this narrow focus on one misleading economic indicator and judge a government’s performance by a more realistic set of metrics: overall growth, environmental responsibility (externalities), standard of living, long term thinking. Under these criteria I have no doubt a Labor government can perform as well as any in the world.

(Andrew Charlton’s Comment in November’s issue of the Monthly is a great and more detailed debunking of the interest rate myths.)

(Originally from http://claytonsouthlabor.blogspot.com/)

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Recent tweets

  • Listening to Lib & ALP talk about climate change. It's all about 'balancing' jobs and costs. Balance costs with global doom? 1 day ago
  • @decryption How scarce will supplies be? 2 days ago
  • @ECH0x3 I wish it was over also, and that we won. :) 2 days ago
  • Just did a spot on The Morning Show. Think it got cut short because of Miranda Kerr's honeymoon. 3 days ago
  • #qanda We're still treating climate change like any other old policy. It's hard science, and the earth is peril. Stop quibbling! 3 days ago

Archives

  • July 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • April 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • November 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • April 2007

Blogroll

  • Andy Social
  • EFA
  • Larvatus Prodeo
  • Nic Suzor
  • Open Internet
  • Pharyngula
  • Somebody Think of the Children
  • Stilgherrian
Powered by Wordpress | Designed by Elegant Themes