Opinion 
 Blogs 
 National Comment 
 You've come a long way, baby 

You've come a long way, baby

Last month the governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, was invited back to his alma mater as an honoured guest, about three decades after he'd been there as a humble economics student. Thinking back to the late 1970s, he observed that "in the moment-by-moment focus on the economic data, and all the wiggles and ticks up and down of this indicator or that, we can often neglect to stand back and look at the big picture".

Too true. Tomorrow I will have been the Sydney Morning Herald's economics editor for 30 years. Thirty years of commenting on the wiggles and ticks of this economic indicator or that. So let me stand back and describe what I've seen in the big picture during that time.

In 1978, Malcolm Fraser and his treasurer, John Howard, were still grappling without much success with the local end of the seminal event in the economic history of the developed world during the second half of the 20th century: the advent of "stagflation".

Until the first OPEC oil price shock of late 1973, economists had believed you could have a problem with unemployment or a problem with inflation, but you couldn't have both problems at the same time. Like all the developed countries, we soon discovered that you could. Compounded by the gross economic mismanagement of the Whitlam government, our economy entered a period of extreme dysfunction from which it has fully emerged only in recent days.

Stagflation threw the economics profession into disarray and disillusion. Its standard remedies no longer worked. It took more than a decade of furious debate between Keynesians and monetarists before the profession had a good handle on what had gone wrong and what could be done about it.

The inflation rate reached a peak of 17.6 per cent under the Whitlam government and averaged more than 10 per cent throughout the '70s. It averaged 8 per cent during the '80s and only came back under control in 1992 with the Keating government, since when it's averaged about 2.5 per cent.

After averaging 2 per cent through the post-war Golden Age - the end of which economists date as 1974 - the unemployment rate shot up to 5 per cent after the Whitlam government's recession of the mid-1970s, reached 10 per cent after the Fraser government's recession of the early '80s and 11 per cent after the Hawke government's recession of the early '90s. It has taken all the time since then to get unemployment down to its present 4 per cent (and that's with a lot more under-employment than in the old days).

My second major development of the past 30 years is the Hawke-Keating government's decision in the mid-1980s to deregulate much of the domestic economy and open it up to a rapidly globalising world.

The list of "micro-economic reforms" from that era is long and remarkable: floating the dollar, deregulating the banks, removing import protection, introducing capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax, extending the Trade Practices Act, shifting from centralised wage-fixing to enterprise bargaining, reforming government utilities, privatising government-owned businesses and deregulating many industries, from bread and eggs to aviation and telecommunications. Among the developed economies, only New Zealand could top such a list.

#What do we have to show for all that? An economy that's grown strongly for almost 17 years, where competition is more intense in many industries, where most shops are open seven days a week, where unions are in retreat, where work pressures have intensified and it's easier to lose your job. But also an economy where firms have less power to set prices as they choose and so an economy that's markedly less inflation-prone. It was this, I'm convinced, that gave us a lasting solution to stagflation. Now if we have high inflation we at least have low unemployment to go with it; if we have high unemployment we have low inflation.

My third major development of the past 30 years - a further manifestation of globalisation - is the economic emergence of Asia: first Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, then other members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, and now the heavy hitters, China and India.

China is transforming the global economy. Why are the world prices of cars and various other manufactures falling? Why are the world prices of oil, foodstuffs, steel, minerals and energy shooting up? Why are the prices we're getting for our exports compared with the prices we're paying for our imports the best we've seen in more than 50 years? Why are we in the midst of the biggest resources boom since the gold rush - one that shows no sign of ending?

China is the main answer to all those questions. Thirty years ago Japan, Europe and the United States accounted for more than 60 per cent of our combined exports and imports. Today it's 40 per cent. Then, China and emerging Asia accounted for less than 10 per cent of our trade; today it's 44 per cent.

That's one respect in which the economy has changed. Another is that a lot more of what we buy is imported and a lot more of what we produce is exported. Foreigners own more of Australian business, but Australians own more foreign businesses.

Thirty years ago manufacturing accounted for 16 per cent of the economy; today it's 10 per cent. Then, financial and business services accounted for 12 per cent; today it's 20 per cent.

In that time our standard of living has risen by 80 per cent. If you find that hard to believe - or hard to imagine - think of all the expensive gadgets we have now that we didn't have then: personal computers, laptops, email and the internet; mobile phones, personal organisers, CDs, DVDs, pay TV, movie cameras, digital cameras, home entertainment systems and plasma screens, not to mention dishwashers, driers and microwave ovens.

Our computerised cars are far more reliable and less rust-prone. Our homes are much bigger, with more bedrooms, bathrooms and living space.

Has all this material success made us any happier? I doubt it. That's one thing I've learnt in the past 30 years.

Source: Business Day smh.com.au

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
I agree, and I am very thankful for our growing prosperity (even for low-income earners such as myself). However, the problem with material prosperity or riches is that one always wants more. To derive your happiness from this is problematic because you can delude yourself that you can be happier if only I had more or better. My happiness comes from investing in love, family and truth in Jesus. This enables me to ride the storms and disappointments of life, whether richer or poorer.
Posted by Nick on 4/06/2008 11:10:16 AM
Destroying The Myth Our standard of living has risen 80% in 30 years. Hmmm! For whom not for the worker? I grew up in the 50s there were five children in my family my mother stayed home to look after us. My parents purchased a home in Bentleigh they paid cash for their car / had a television / holidayed once a year all on a policeman's wage. We may have more nick nacks now but many of these are financed or are non essential. Nowadays a very basic home loan of $250,000 will cost minimum $1,993 per month I am a Finance Broker in Ballarat most of our clients take home $530 to $600 per week so $2,296.66 a month on one income / I would like to see that stretched to what my father could do on one income in the 50's
Posted by colette Fulham on 4/06/2008 3:10:03 PM
For millennia the acknowledged wise have been holding forth on the inability of wealth to make us happy. Most of them said things like the way to happiness was helping others, being humble and giving your stuff away. Maybe they were all wrong. Wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately I suspect they were probably right. Happiness is apparently not a McMansion, a plasma, and an SUV - there are too many miserable suburbanites. But maybe it's a Mansion, a yacht and a Porsche? I wouldn't know, you will have to ask them! But it's not looking good.
Posted by Fruitfly on 4/06/2008 4:36:22 PM
Has this made us any happier? s**t yeah!
Posted by john on 4/06/2008 9:17:39 PM
Reflections in a pond of water are prone to being distorted. However fleeting, the record low unemployment at least becomes associated with underemployment, albeit not quantified. That, I'm afraid is an unconvenient truth. Our standard of living is measured through an economic prism; things we have determine the standard, but for most people the having is not owning, having spent future earnings which we hope will continue forever. If not, ownership soon changes in a brutal way. Computerised cars don't run on software, when oil runs out. Sure, our homes are bigger with fewer living in them and that is progress? At least the final conclusion fits; no we're not happier and the divide between rich and poor is growing. Wealth distribution is a priority which basically means that the amount of work available must be distributed among those willing to do it. However, that's where solidarity and compassion part; there's always the overextended mortgage to pay.
Posted by Observer on 5/06/2008 9:21:44 AM
Think of what we truly have a limited supply of: our lives. Think of what we spend so much of our lives doing: working, or travelling to and from work, or maintaining the car that gets us to work... and so on. Few people find their jobs fulfilling. But each one of us will spend as much as 10,000 days at work, spending too much of what we earn on paying for all the crap we buy to try to disguise the discomfort of working for most of our lives, with a few years of creaky inactivity to close out our innings. The real value of money comes when you have enough to start buying parts of your productive life back, and doing what you want with them. Save. Save like (the rest of) your life depended on it. Because it will.
Posted by Jason on 5/06/2008 12:29:59 PM
I can't afford the lessons for the minimum number of hours required to attain a car licence, so I'm 24 and on a bicycle. I not the best looking guy so I doubt I'll ever have a duel income relationship to afford a home. I'm only blue collar so I'll never be above and beyond the line of wealth. But sure, Australians have never had it so good. Why not.
Posted by FreExplo on 5/06/2008 7:25:52 PM
Material wealth may not equal happiness, but being dirt poor sure does add to one's unhappiness. Certainly there's more to life than plasma TVs and iPods, but it's a lot easier to work out what more there might be when you don't have to worry about having a roof over your head or food on the table.
Posted by Sanchez on 7/06/2008 9:30:34 AM
Manufacturing down, long term male unemployment up. Finances and services up, employment of women in their prime child bearing years up (all in low paid jobs, mind you). For all of our rising prosperity, over the past 30 years we have increases in: Wait for it, it's a long list: Low birth weight babies, 30% increase in obesity in our kids since 1990, diabetes, asthma, autism (300% increase), psychological problems of depression, anxiety and a myriad of mental health problems in our teens and young adults, teen suicides have soared, violent crime has risen and the offenders are younger, 2002 saw the male age range of 10-14 and 15-19 amount for over 50% of assaults, drug and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, mental health problems (overseas stats as none here) are showing as much as 15% in youth in wealthy families, foetal alcohol syndrome, cerebral palsy, eating disorders. And the list could go on. Among the few things that have improved (eg: infant mortalities, longer life) is school retention rates, especially for girls. But boys are performing badly in comparison at Uni's. Only 56% of our kids attend pre-school, which is a major important socialising time and a requirement for easy entry into primary school, which results in staying in school longer. All the above increases are results of lower socio-economic status. Clearly, the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' is widening horrendously. Yep, our material possession have gone up (for some) for a select number, (about 32% freehold home owners) their assets have soared in value. Capitalism has encouraged competition to the detriment of co-operation within the community. Should we be warning China of where they are headed? Would it make any difference? Capitalism is embraced by those select few who would appear to benefit from it, but at what cost to those who don't? For all of our 'good life', there's a price to pay, and it's our next generation that will be paying it.
Posted by shivers on 8/06/2008 3:27:35 PM
Quote: "Nowadays a very basic home loan of $250,000 will cost minimum $1,993 per month I am a Finance Broker in Ballarat " You can buy a house in Ballarat or Bendigo for $200,000. Why would you have to borrow that much?
Posted by wee robbie on 9/06/2008 1:47:54 PM
1 | 2  |  next >
National Comment
Here is the place for you to vent on any national or world news and lifestyle stories on the YourGuide websites. If there is anything you see or hear that you like or don't like, tell us. Don't keep it to yourself!
28/11/2008 | The fiendish outrage in Mumbai this week will not dent India’s resilience one bit.
Road Safety Ad
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...