Australia: Negative gearing and its impact on the housing market | RP Data Research Blog

Cameron Kusher extends the following argument in favor of negative gearing:

Many in favour of removing negative gearing from property say that it should occur due to the fact that housing is an unproductive asset class. My argument is that given that housing provides shelter, if investors don’t purchase these assets, it would then be the responsibility of the Government to provide this shelter. Ultimately, that would mean that anyone that pays taxes would be funding housing for those who can’t afford it themselves.

What happened to individuals being responsible for their own housing? A large part of rental demand is due to poor housing affordability. If we made housing more affordable, the rental market would shrink.

Kusher highlights that in September 1985 the government quarantined negative gearing interest expenses on new transactions.

The reason why negative gearing was reinstated in September 1987 was that it was proclaimed that rents rose sharply on the back of a fall in housing market investment.

The following chart shows that rental growth accelerated between September 1985 and September 1987:
Rental Growth

But no explanation is given for the earlier peak in rental growth rates — 13% in 1982 — prior to restrictions on negative gearing.

And what is not mentioned is that interest rates were rising. Standard variable bank mortgage rates peaked at 15.5% in 1986/1987. That would account for any decline in new housing investment, even though this is not evident from investor finance commitments.

via Negative gearing and its impact on the housing market | RP Data Research Blog.

Productivity: Ireland leads the way

Ireland now leads the United States in labor productivity as measured by GDP (converted to USD after adjusting for purchasing power parity) to hours worked by the workforce. Mark Cassidy writes on Ireland’s strong productivity growth during the 1990s:

Strong productivity growth during this period was largely driven by substantial foreign direct investment inflows from the United States and sectoral change in industry — i.e. a continuing shift of capital and labour from agriculture and relatively low productivity manufacturing towards high-technology sectors including chemicals and ICT sectors — and was facilitated by macro and micro-economic reforms implemented since the late 1980s, favourable exchange rate and international economic developments, increased European integration and the availability of a young, relatively well-educated workforce.

Two factors stand out:

  1. Ireland joined the euro-zone on its official launch in January 1999;
  2. The Irish government is committed to a 12.5% corporate tax regime, among the lowest in Europe.

Removal of trade barriers and favorable tax rates attracted large investment in high-tech manufacturing, primarily from the United States.

Belgium ranked as the 3rd most productive country in the world?

Belgium scores highly on international productivity rankings, which compare GDP (converted to USD after adjusting for purchasing power parity) to hours worked by the workforce. But results can be deceiving. Amcham Belgium writes:

Although Belgium has a high productivity score, it might not be all good news. Firstly, the results could be influenced by the fact that only 34.5% of its employable population aged 55 to 65 are actually working ……… Secondly, Belgian salaries are on average 11% higher than those of neighboring countries (the Netherlands, Germany and France)…..

Belgium may rank high on GDP per hour worked but slips down the rankings when measured on GDP per capita because of its low labor participation rate which imposes a high social cost on the country. That is why it is important not to use just one measure when assessing productivity.
Read more at Belgium ranked as the 3rd most productive country in the world.

Labor productivity can be misleading

We are frequently bombarded with labor productivity statistics such as output per hour worked and unit labor costs — normally accompanied by political hand-wringing exhorting us to improve productivity — but how accurate are these statistics and what do they mean?

First let’s look at GDP per capita. This should tell us how well we are doing compared to our neighbors. Norway and Singapore lead the pack, ahead of the US, while Australia is comfortably in the middle.

Measuring in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) adjusts for comparative price levels in different countries. Australia and Norway are most expensive, with relative price indices (PPP/exchange rate) of 1.61 and 1.58 respectively; while Singapore (0.83), Czech Republic (0.80) and South Korea (0.74) are cheapest.

Demographics such as an aging population or high birth rates, however, may distort per capita figures.

Index

Norway also leads when it comes to GDP per hour worked — which should alert us that productivity of resource-rich economies such as Norway and Australia may be inflated by profits earned from extraction (mining, oil and gas). Ireland surprisingly beats the US, while Singapore slips to near bottom of the table when measured by hours worked.

Index

Workers in Singapore and South Korea work far longer hours than most other OECD countries, while those in powerhouse Germany work even less than their counterparts in France.

Index

But hours worked can also give a distorted view of employee welfare. Compare the 3 or 4 hours that workers in Sydney, London or New York may spend commuting to and from work each day to a Korean assembly worker who lives in a housing estate adjacent to the assembly plant. If we compare GDP (adjusted for PPP) to employed persons, rather than hours worked, we get a slightly different picture. The real surprise is again Ireland, ranking third behind Norway and the US — and well ahead of Australia, Germany and the UK.

Index

What do we learn from this? It pays to live in a resource-rich country such as Norway (or Australia). It also pays to work clever — high-tech manufacturing like Germany and Ireland — rather than hard. Combine this with a low-tax jurisdiction — such as Singapore or Ireland — and you can become a world-beater.

Read more at BLS: International Comparisons of GDP per Capita and per Hour

Labor productivity

Labor productivity is measured as Output / Input

Where Output is the total of goods and services produced, normally measured by GDP.

And Input is the time, effort and skills of the workforce, measured either as:

  • total hours worked by the workforce; or
  • total number of employees.

Via OECD: Labour Productivity Indicators | Rebecca Freeman

EU Deal Reached on Bank Supervisor | WSJ.com

GABRIELE STEINHAUSER And LAURENCE NORMAN at WSJ write:

European Union finance ministers reached a landmark deal early Thursday that would bring many of the continent’s banks under a single supervisor, in what governments hope will be a major step toward resolving their three-year-old debt crisis. Ministers said the European Central Bank would start policing the most important and vulnerable banks in the euro zone and other countries that choose to join the new supervisory regime next year. Once it takes over, the ECB will be able to force banks to raise their capital buffers and even shut down unsafe lenders.

This is an important step, centralizing banking control in Brussels. Though there is bound to be dissent amongst member states as to capital buffers and unsafe lending practices.
Read more at EU Deal Reached on Bank Supervisor – WSJ.com.

Risk Seen in Fed Bond Buying | WSJ.com

KRISTINA PETERSON at WSJ writes:

The Federal Reserve should stop buying bonds, even as the central bank is poised to purchase more, according to a narrow majority of economists in a new survey by The Wall Street Journal……”It’s distorting market prices and creating problems in the future,” said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities, who said the Fed’s bond-buying was making long-term Treasurys too expensive without significantly easing problems in the labor market. “The Fed needs to back away and let interest rates rise just a little bit,” he said.

If past performance is anything to go by, Fed quantitative easing (or bond buying) is ineffectual in lifting the employment rate. And the lower that they drive bond yields, the greater the backlash when yields eventually rise. Yields are likely to spike up rapidly as bond-holders attempt to offload positions in order to avoid massive capital losses.

via Risk Seen in Fed Bond Buying – WSJ.com.

New Research from Finland’s Central Bank Confirms that Government Spending Is Causing Stagnation in Europe | International Liberty

Dan Mitchell reports on new research from the Bank of Finland:

Europe suffers from a growth slowdown. The GDP growth in Europe has lagged behind the GDP growth in the US and has been far worse than the GDP growth in the NIC countries, particularly China… However, what is the reason for slow or rapid economic growth? …In many respects, the labour market plays the key role in the economy because it determines both the use of the labour input and the level of overall competitiveness of a nation. Obviously, the functioning of the labour market is not independent of the public sector. A large government is almost inevitably associated with a large tax wedge, and the functioning of the labour market appears to be critically dependent on the size of the tax wedge. It may be fair to say that the harmful consequences of a high tax wedge are exceptionally well and unambiguously documented in the literature. …On the basis of the estimates derived in this study, the following guide for growth policies appears to be warranted: …Do not over-expand the welfare state. Larger governments are associated with slower growth rates.

Read more at New Research from Finland’s Central Bank Confirms that Government Spending Is Causing Stagnation in Europe « International Liberty.

Fed’s numerical thresholds are a bad idea

The Fed effectively tied its monetary policy to a balloon bobbing in the wind. Pedro da Costa writes on Reuters:

The Federal Reserve on Wednesday took the unprecedented step of tying its low rate policy directly to unemployment, saying it will keep rates near rock bottom until the jobless rate falls to 6.5 percent. That’s as long as inflation, the other key parameter of policy, does not exceed 2.5 percent.

Both unemployment and inflation are moving targets. Unemployment primarily because results are highly dependent on the participation rate: disheartened job seekers who give up looking for work are excluded from unemployment figures. Likewise, inflation measures are highly subjective. Weightings require constant adjustment because of advances in technology and changes in consumption patterns, while cost of housing estimates, which make up 39 percent of core CPI, seem to have little connection with reality. Scott Sumner points out:

The problem seems to be that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, housing prices did not fall. On the contrary, their data shows housing prices actually rising between mid-2008 and mid-2009, despite one of the greatest housing market crashes in history. And prices did not rise only in nominal terms; they rose in relative terms as well, that is, faster than the overall core CPI. If we take the longer view, the Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that house prices have risen about 8 percent over the past six years, whereas the famous Case-Shiller house price index shows them falling by nearly 35 percent…..

Ray Dalio Explains The Rare Set Of Circumstances That's Making Him Bearish On Markets | Business Insider

Joe Weisenthal reports on hedge fund guru Ray Dalio’s outlook:

His novel set of circumstances he sees is an economy that faces austerity (due to the Fiscal Cliff, etc.) coupled with a Fed that’s mostly blown its bazooka, and can’t get much more juice out of QE.

  • Yields can’t go down anymore.
  • Austerity is coming.
  • Economy is running out of steam.
  • QE is losing its efficacy.
  • Rate turn probably finally coming late in 2013.

Read more at Ray Dalio Explains The Rare Set Of Circumstances That's Making Him Bearish On Markets – Business Insider.

Dangers of quantiative easing may be political more than technical

Glenn Stevens, governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, in an address to the Bank of Thailand today commented on the dangers facing central bank monetary policy:

For the major countries a further dimension to what is happening is the blurring of the distinction between monetary and fiscal policy. Granted, central banks are not directly purchasing government debt at issue. But the size of secondary market purchases, and the share of the debt stock held by some central banks, are sufficiently large that it can only be concluded that central bank purchases are materially alleviating the market constraint on government borrowing. At the very least this is lowering debt service costs, and it may also condition how quickly fiscal deficits need to be reduced. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that in circumstances of deficient private demand with low inflation or the threat of deflation. In fact it could be argued that fiscal and monetary policies might actually be jointly more effective in raising both short and long-term growth in those countries if central bank funding could be made to lead directly to actual public final spending – say directed towards infrastructure with a positive and long-lasting social return – as opposed to relying on indirect effects on private spending.

The problem will be the exit from these policies, and the restoration of the distinction between fiscal and monetary policy with the appropriate disciplines. The problem isn’t a technical one: the central banks will be able to design appropriate technical modalities for reversing quantitative easing when needed. The real issue is more likely to be that ending a lengthy period of guaranteed cheap funding for governments may prove politically difficult. There is history to suggest so. It is no surprise that some worry that we are heading some way back towards the world of the 1920s to 1960s where central banks were ‘captured’ by the Government of the day.

via RBA: Speech-Challenges for Central Banking.

Hat tip to Walter Kurtz at Business Insider.