Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
cobran20

Why this is a bad time to win an election

9 posts in this topic

link

Kevin Rudd came to power for the first time on December 3rd 2007, just a few months after the global financial crisis commenced, and some time before its severity was truly appreciated by the political classes of any nation. On September 7, he lost office for the last time.

The first election he won was a bad one to win, not because he was blamed for the calamity of the GFC itself of course, but because his entire term was dominated by reacting to it.

That reaction had parts that could be rubbished (everything from the Liberal Party’s favourite farce of the Pink Batts program [1] to my pet hate, the First Home Vendors Boost [2]) but a simple comparison of Australia’s economic performance to that of the rest of the OECD over the last six years shows that his reaction worked – see Figure 1, which shows unemployment in Australia, the US and Ireland. Unemployment never exceeded six per cent here, and growth turned negative for only one quarter. The US, on the other hand, had its longest post-war recession ever, and Europe’s obsession with austerity turned its downturn into a genuine second Great Depression.

Figure 1: Australia handled the GFC much better than the US or Europe

keen1.png?itok=TtFAOO8E

Of course, though Rudd had bad luck to take over when this crisis was just beginning, he also had good luck on his side as well – not least that our biggest trading partner undertook an even bigger government stimulus in response to the crisis that gave us the best terms of trade in our history, and our biggest export boom.

So could this election be a good one to lose? Not for Rudd, of course. Surely there’s no way he will emulate “Lazarus with a triple by-pass [3]” and make a comeback from this electoral defeat. But the ALP will hand over the reins of government to the Liberals at much the time that luck is no longer playing on the Australian side. If so, this will be unusual, since normally timing has played into the Liberals' hands rather than Labor’s.

Gough Whitlam’s victory over William McMahon in December 1972 took place at the beginning of one of the last booms in Australia’s generally booming Post-WWII economy. It will be hard for readers under 60 years old to appreciate this, but the average unemployment rate in Australia from 1950 till 1972 was below two per cent. However, shortly after Whitlam took power, the boom gave way to a huge bust.

The deterioration of the economy then was blamed on the Whitlam government’s policies, but the evidence is clear that he simply had the misfortune to come to power just when the long post-war boom was unravelling. As Figure 2 illustrates, however much Whitlam might have been ridiculed locally for the Khemlani affair [4] and the like, the collapse in economic growth and the rise in unemployment during his term was a global phenomenon. His problem wasn’t bad economic management, but simply bad timing.

Figure 2: The downturn blamed on Whitlam was a global phenomenon

keen2.png?itok=p72PKcD0

Malcolm Fraser, on the other hand, was the one post-war example of a Liberal leader taking over from a Labor one at an inopportune time. The Liberals won that election on the basis that they were better economic managers than Labor – “just look at the evidence!” – but history shows that it was simply bad timing for Labor that was followed, on the surface at least, by bad policy by Fraser’s Liberals. Unemployment continued to get worse under Fraser (with Howard as his Treasurer), despite his very different approach to economic policy to Whitlam (and Jim Cairns), and this bad performance on unemployment was the opposite of what happening in the US at the time.

Hawke, on the other hand, took over from Fraser at almost the perfect time internationally. He and his “world’s greatest treasurer” Paul Keating could bask in the success of their economic policies, but again the Australian performance at the time largely mirrored what was happening in the US when Ronald Reagan [5] was in the White House, and followed a very different political and economic agenda to Hawke and Keating (see figure 3). It was the politician’s timing that mattered once again, far more so than the politician’s policies.

Figure 3

keen3.png?itok=1Qbo6ueI

Ditto John Howard when he downed Paul Keating. By then, Australia had recovered from “the recession we had to have”, and the economy was improving in both Australia and the US, despite the fact that one country now had a conservative government and the other had Bill Clinton’s Democrats in power (see figure 4).

Figure 4

keen4.png?itok=EgCnymB-

Then along comes Rudd, and though yet again timing far more than his policies dictated the economic circumstances of the day, the undeniable fact is that Australia’s economic performance diverged from that of the rest of the world (see figure 5). Rudd’s policies – or rather those proposed by his Treasury Secretary Ken Henry of “Go early, go hard, go households” that Rudd adopted with gusto – worked.

Figure 5

keen5.png?itok=tFmUvowA

So if – with the sole exception of Rudd – it wasn’t the policies of politicians that determined the fates of their economies, what was it?

It was their timing relative to the global debt bubble that has determined the fate of Western economies ever since the early 1970s (see figure 6, which shows the rises and falls in the rate of growth of private debt in Australia and the US since 1970).

Whitlam had the great misfortune to come to power six months before the first popping of the bubble in mid-1973. Rudd was even unluckier; his first term began literally when the global recession commenced as the debt bubble had its biggest pop in history.

Fraser was, in some ways, the unluckiest of all: he came to power after the 1973 bursting of the debt bubble, but whereas the US then had another debt-driven revival, Australia didn’t. So the economy languished under him, not because of his policies (which were largely irrelevant), but because debt growth took a lot longer to rise again in Australia than it did in America after the 1973 crisis.

Hawke and Howard, on the other hand, had the fortune to come to power as the debt engine started revving again.

Figure 6: Riding the waves of the private debt bubble

keen6.png?itok=MCsN5_y0

So what could the future hold for Prime Minister Abbott? Here I have a hunch that he’ll end up suffering a similar fate, not to the previous Liberal leader he admires – John Howard – but to one I expect he detests – Malcolm Fraser.

Fraser, as noted, had the good fortune to take over from Whitlam after the bursting of the debt bubble was largely over, but the bad fortune that the revival in Australia's bubble was considerably more anaemic than America’s. Abbott could well find himself experiencing a similar double-edged sword of fate. He will take over when the deleveraging that caused the GFC has come to a temporary halt, and demand will be rising in the US (and maybe even in Europe, from the depths of its self-imposed Depression) thanks to rising private debt (see figure 7). But this rise could peter out even more quickly than it did for Fraser, leading to anaemic economic performance that will be blamed on the politician rather than the times.

Figure 7

keen7.png?itok=mM29RX2v

Australia also faces the headwinds of a possible bursting debt bubble in China, something that is also beyond Abbott’s control. Our new prime minister may find that he lives in interesting times, rather than favourable ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbott could well be Australia's José Zapatero or Bertie Ahern. Unfortunately the bumbling f*cks in opposition. are incapable of picking up the pieces with KRudd present and megalomaniac Shorten in the mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

australian_economic_cycles_with_political_cycles_overlay_to_2011.png

http://exfacie.com/?q=australian_economic_cycles_and_political_cycles

IMO anyone jockeying for power should be aiming around 2022. The next decade isn't going to be the best climate for pollies. The swing against Labor over the last two elections combined is 9.6%. Bad timing, bad policies and corrupt/incompetent pollies... not a great mix. Guys like Menzies and Howard will be lauded but they got lucky with their timing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

australian_economic_cycles_with_political_cycles_overlay_to_2011.png

http://exfacie.com/?...olitical_cycles

IMO anyone jockeying for power should be aiming around 2022. The next decade isn't going to be the best climate for pollies. The swing against Labor over the last two elections combined is 9.6%. Bad timing, bad policies and corrupt/incompetent pollies... not a great mix. Guys like Menzies and Howard will be lauded but they got lucky with their timing.

good article considering it was written in 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

australian_economic_cycles_with_political_cycles_overlay_to_2011.png

http://exfacie.com/?...olitical_cycles

IMO anyone jockeying for power should be aiming around 2022. The next decade isn't going to be the best climate for pollies. The swing against Labor over the last two elections combined is 9.6%. Bad timing, bad policies and corrupt/incompetent pollies... not a great mix. Guys like Menzies and Howard will be lauded but they got lucky with their timing.

Those nice uniform cycles depicted are pretty deceptive and I couldn't really say that Australia has had that final downturn... yet.

Looks like the article wasn't written in 2011 but closer to 2007-2008. At the time they thought a couple of years of downturn and here comes another boom. I don't know if you would call that optimistic or pessimistic in hindsight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there ever a bad time to win any position. If it is easy going then you can sit back and claim success. If it is tough going then you can go in and do as you please to create success.

If the debt is counted as bad then a Liberal could gut the social services to all his liking and get to surplus while a Labor person could gut the middle and high class welfare to all his liking and get to surplus.

There are probably individuals right now who are worried about their seat in three years time which I find senseless. I couldn't believe the two Labor individuals who sided with removing the carbon tax yesterday. They just won their seat but clearly feel the pressure to give away any negotiation power on their first day of office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the article wasn't written in 2011 but closer to 2007-2008. At the time they thought a couple of years of downturn and here comes another boom. I don't know if you would call that optimistic or pessimistic in hindsight.

Judging by the position of the "Today" arrow the author isn't pointing to another boom in the near future - rather, some distance before the secular "bottoming".

It's funny, Howard was described (by some) as a terrible Treasurer and a good PM, yet his successes and failures had more to do with timing than personal competence in either role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny, Howard was described (by some) as a terrible Treasurer and a good PM, yet his successes and failures had more to do with timing than personal competence in either role.

That probably applies to a lot of PM's/treasurers. When the economic tide is with you, they call you a "world's best treasurer", when it is against you, you become the opposition party after the next election. Perhaps Shorten/Albanese/Bowen should have consulted with Armstrong before deciding on whether to go for the Labor leadership & opposition treasurer jobs! happy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abbott is being credited with delivering a 25b boost in equities by rupert. It seems the entire globe is rejoicing in a coalition win in Australia. :yes:

Tony Abbott's Midas touch: Coalition win delivers $25b market dividend

IT has been described as the "Tony Abbott Dividend" - the $25 billion boost to the value of Aussie companies since the nation elected a new PM.

Despite not even being officially sworn in - Australia's new PM has been hailed by the nation's business leaders and top economists as the wielding the "economic Midas touch" after a swathe of positive financial news fostered hope the Australian economy was slowly recovering from rock bottom.

Home-loan tycoon John Symond last night said everyday Australians, from cab-drivers to business leaders could feel the wider up-swell in sentiment since the weekend.

"I've spoken to everyone from bank bosses to shop keepers and they were all relatively buoyed," Mr Symond said.

"(Tony Abbott) might be in the right place at the right time, but there's no denying in my opinion the economy is on the up now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0