Flashpoint No. 2

Flashpoint No. 2

2009-07-10 06:00:57 from The Piping Shrike - A perspective on Australian politics
—————————————————

When Rudd goes to international shindigs like the one in Italy, he has to play a delicate balancing game. He must be seen to be an active player without revealing Australia’s insignificance on the world stage. This is because Australian politics, and especially this government, is far more reliant on the international stage for prestige than its political weight on that stage permits.

This delicate balancing act has become trickier for all Australian governments as the weakening of the US’s political order becomes more evident. To manage this, Australia’s relationship with China is critical. For the coalition, ‘China-fretting’ offers an indirect means of grappling with the much more painful question of what the delcine of US prestige means for the side of politics most directly reliant on it. For the government, developing a relationship with China at least allowed the government to appear to be forging out a new ‘middle power diplomacy’, when in fact such a middle course of diplomacy would not be possible.

For reasons we can now see. The detention by the Chinese government of an Australian businessman poses far more difficulties for Rudd than would be immediately apparent in the polls. The fact that the Australian government has not been involved until this late stage is a sign of how little influence it has in Beijing. The fact that Beijing could bring the charges against an Australian national at all indicates how limited influence Australia has in the world. It is hard to imagine such treatment of a US citizen.

This is why Rudd’s immediate response is to try and shut down the discussion by mimicking the Chinese government’s call for this not to be politicised. Rudd and the Chinese government need not have worried for now. It is striking that besides Turnbull’s fairly weak call for a telephone call to Beijing, it has been left to self-styled ‘maverick’ Barnaby Joyce to fill the vacuum.

It would arguably make sense for the coalition to tread carefully on this. Business interests are unlikely to be served by a political class making threats that they can’t follow through. The problem is that for a coalition in a struggle for ‘values’, this may be a temptation too large to resist. Whatever happens with the coalition, though, this is unlikely to stop it being more of a headache for the government than anyone.

Originally posted here:
Flashpoint No. 2

America’s version of Bird.

America’s version of Bird.

2009-07-10 00:03:36 from Thoughts on Freedom - Australian Libertarian Society Blog
—————————————————

See the original post here:
America’s version of Bird.

Reading Terry McCrann

Reading Terry McCrann

2009-07-09 23:39:34 from John Quiggin - Commentary on Australian & world events from a social-democratic perspective
—————————————————

Terry McCrann has responded to the call for a new inquiry into the financial system with a snark-filled piece which is of sociological, if not intellectual, interest. Let’s jump to his last para.

What next then? Setting up a government-owned home-buying service at the Post Office? Presumably two others among the ’six-pac’, Nicholas Gruen and John Quiggin, would love that, provided it directed the trusting unsophisticated only into carbon neutral homes.

The most charitable interpretation of McCrann’s reference to carbon-neutral homes is that he is indicating a tribal affiliation. He knows that the typical reader of the Herald-Sun business pages has delusional beliefs about climate change, and is assuring his readers that he shares these beliefs. This alone would be enough reason to dismiss the rest of the column. If McCrann is prepared to dismiss a vast amount of scientific evidence on a topic on which he has no particular expertise, simply because members of his social group don’t like the conclusions, his judgements are worthless. In the absence of any new factual evidence (and, all the facts mentioned in his column are well-known), his arguments have no evidentiary weight. In essence, they amount to the statement “if you’re on my team, you shouldn’t agree with these guys, because they are on the other team”

But that, as I observed, is the charitable interpretation. The less charitable view is that McCrann rejects climate science because his world view is incompatible with the existence of the atmosphere, or any kind of global public good. There’s plenty of evidence for this interpretation in his column. On McCrann’s apparent view, the fact that Australia is not in a deep recession proves that there is, and can be, no such thing as a global recession. Since we haven’t been affected, there’s no need to worry. To quote his column

For their call for a massive, Campbell-and-Wallis type inquiry into the financial system actually lacks ‘a problem’ that has been exposed and thereby needs fixing. … global financial crisis. Not many dead or even injured in Australia. From any systemic fault, that’s to say.

There is a real problem here. McCrann is significantly less ignorant and wilfully stupid than the average defender of economic liberalism in Australia (compare for example, Andrew Bolt or the Institute of Public Affairs). But he can’t allow himself to be much smarter than his readers, and stupidity and ignorance (whether endowed by nature or acquired by effort) are essential if you are to be a full member of the tribe. In a period when social democracy is on the rise, we need better opponents than this.

Original post:
Reading Terry McCrann

Why Michael Costa was useless

Why Michael Costa was useless

2009-07-09 21:05:00 from The Western Lines - Occasional rants and musing from Sydney’s western suburbs
—————————————————

Many Liberals like former NSW Labor Treasurer Michael Costa. He even has his on Facebook Fan Page. I myself enjoy reading his articles but the latest shows whats wrong with the NSW government and his fatal flaw.

In last week’s Australian he wrote on the Woolworths/Coles duopoly and good free markeeter he is, wants to remove barriers to competition:


The real danger in the government’s decision to walk away from its election commitment is not lack of consumer information but rather that the major underlying problem in retail competition, planning barriers to entry, will not be addressed effectively…..

Problems here are in jurisdictions normally outside the control of the federal government: state government planning departments and local councils. The ACCC correctly identified that state planning laws which contributed to a lack of suitable sites for new grocery retailers were a significant barrier to entry for competitors to the majors.

Look, those departments and Councils are under the control of the State government. Mr Costa was a member of that government and rose to the position of Treasurer . So why didn’t you do something about Michael? How about Accepting some responsibility?

Instead he reverts to the Labor State politician’s mindset- its the Feds fault:


The federal government needs to deal with urban planning and land use as part of its national competition reform agenda. The argument that this is a state and local government issue does not have credibility given the federal government intrusion through its environmental legislation into what were traditionally state and local government issues.

Bumping the problem upstairs is not going to help, the Feds will meet the same opposition to change that State politicians find. What is required are real state leaders who accept responsibility and are willing to make tough decision and see them carried out. Mr Costa proves he was never the man for the job.

See the original post here:
Why Michael Costa was useless

Censorsdyne launched as Children’s groups oppose filter (but Conroy says they’re wrong)

Censorsdyne launched as Children’s groups oppose filter (but Conroy says they’re wrong)

2009-07-09 20:44:57 from Somebody Think Of The Children - Australian Censorship Discussion Blog
—————————————————

GetUp! has officially launched Censordyne, an ad and website campaign combo to help stop the Government from introducing Internet censorship in Australia. The group hopes to show the ad on Qantas flights in August when politicians are on flights to Canberra as Parliament resumes.

Watch here:

Children’s welfare groups Save the Children and the National Children’s & Youth Law Centre joined GetUp! in the campaign, issuing a joint statement (PDF):

We argue that the tens of millions of dollars that such a scheme will cost should instead be diverted to appropriate child protection authorities and police to prevent the abuse of children, and towards effective community-based education strategies that give children and parents the skills to protect themselves.

Further, PC-level filtering software should be promoted to and provided to parents that wish to protect their children from inappropriate internet content.

The Australian Library and Information Association, Civil Liberties Australia, Liberty Victoria, National Association for the Visual Arts, NSW Council for Civil Liberties, QLD Council for Civil Liberties and Dr Alex Byrne FALIA, University Librarian, UTS, also signed the statement.

Read it all here. (PDF)

Senator Conroy’s office responded, saying GetUp’s campaign misrepresents the Government’s position:

“For its last campaign on the issue, GetUp! falsely claimed that any form of filtering would slow internet speeds by 87 percent,” the statement said.

“Now it resorts to spurious claims about the future expansion of the list of content that may be filtered.

“The Government regards freedom of speech as very important and the Government’s cyber-safety policy is in no way designed to curtail this.”

Restricting the access of Australian Internet users to legal content is certainly an attack on freedom of speech.

With respect to the Internet filtering trial currently underway, IT News today reported that Senator Conroy said it was too early to determine how or if the Government’s policy direction on filtering might shift as a result of the trial. The final report on the trial will likely be available in September.

Donations to the GetUp! campaign can be made here.

View original post here:
Censorsdyne launched as Children’s groups oppose filter (but Conroy says they’re wrong)

So how’d we get to be buying all this bottled water in the first place?

So how’d we get to be buying all this bottled water in the first place?

2009-07-09 19:51:29 from Peter Martin - Economics, Canberra, human behaviour
—————————————————
Al Jazeera’s reporting our news. But how did it come to this?

“The outrageous success of bottled water, in a country where more than 89 percent of tap water meets or exceeds federal health and safety regulations, regularly wins in blind taste tests against name-brand waters, and costs 240 to 10,000 times less than bottled water, is an unparalleled social phenomenon, one of the greatest marketing coups of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.” - Bottlemania, Elizabeth Royte

What do you buy each time you reach into a shop fridge grab a 600ml bottle of water?

About one-quarter of a bottle of oil, according to most authoritative estimate - taking into account the oil that has been used to make the plastic, turn it into a bottle, transport it to you and then take it away to be buried, burnt or recycled.

And you are buying more water than you imagine: typically double what’s in the bottle when the water needed to cool and clean the bottling machines is taken into account.

So how did it come to this, and why is it still like this when both water and oil are more scarce than they have ever been?

That’s the mystery tacked by American author Elizabeth Royte in an engrossing new book, Bottlemania: How water went on sale and why we bought it…

We didn’t used to buy bottled water in modern times, although we certainly did in earlier times when public water wasn’t safe.

It began with Orsen Wells intoning in 1978 that “There is a spring and its name is Perrier.” Sales trippled on a campaign built not around thirst, but image.

Then in 1989 came polyethylene terephthalate.

The new so-called PET bottles were “cheap, light, shiny, bright and clean.”

The advertisements used the pop star Madonna and pictures of waterfalls and mountains to imply that drinking bottled water was a “path to enlightenment - like practicing yoga or eating organic food”.

Sales exploded from 115 million to 4 billion in seven years.

Along the way there was help from a myth – that each of us needed to drink eight glasses per day.

Royte traced it back to the food and nutrition board of the US National Research Council which once said that an adult needed one millilitre of water for each calorie of food.

But the board also went on to say (these days unreported) that most of that water was already in the food we ate. Cooked rice and noodles are full of it.

And there was a particularly nasty attempt to change the attitude of restaurant patrons. Waiters were trained to shame them into paying for bottled water, sometimes by forcing them to repeat the word “tap”.

In Canberra, with tap water too good to bottle, we should be above that.

Published in The Canberra Times, June 22, 2008

Elizabeth Royte, Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought it, Bloomsbury, June 2008

http://www.bottlemania.net/

Extract:

“The outrageous success of bottled water, in a country where more than 89 percent of tap water meets or exceeds federal health and safety regulations, regularly wins in blind taste tests against name-brand waters, and costs 240 to 10,000 times less than bottled water, is an unparalleled social phenomenon, one of the greatest marketing coups of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. But why did the marketing work? At least part of the answer, I’m beginning to understand, is that bottled water plays into our ever-growing laziness and impatience.

Americans eat and drink more on the run than ever before. The author Michael Pollan reports that one in three American children eat fast food every single day, and 19 percent of American meals and snacks are eaten in the car. Bottled water fills a perceived need for convenience (convenience without the calories of soda, that is): hydration on the go, with bottles that fit in the palm of the hand, in a briefcase or purse.

According to research conducted by the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), between 1960 and 1970 the average person bought 200 to 250 packaged drinks each year-mostly soda and beer-and many of those were in refillable bottles. When I was growing up, my family drank only from the faucet and from family-size containers. We quenched our thirst, when out and about, with water from public fountains. Either that, or we waited till we got where we were going. On picnics, we might have a big plastic jug of lemonade, homemade. Sure, the grown-ups occasionally bought beer, but the idea of single-serve beverages were considered, by and large, frivolous.

Today, the tap is just as alien to today’s youth, who’ve grown up thinking water comes in bottles, taps aren’t for drinking, and fountains equal filth. Kids like having their hands on a personal water bottle, but they have no interest in washing that bottle out, to be reused another day, or otherwise taking responsibility for their waste.

Stores selling water are on every corner, while drinking fountains or restaurants happy to fill a glass for free are increasingly rare. “As refillables were phased out, as technology developed to enable single-serving plastic bottles, and as industry marketing efforts were ramped up,” CRI reports, “packaged beverage consumption grew and grew.” The success of portable water in the nineties hinged on the mind-set, established in the seventies and eighties, that it was okay to buy-and then toss-single servings of soda while on the go. In 2006, Americans consumed an average of 686 single-serve beverages per person per year; in 2007 we collectively drank fifty billion single-serve bottles of water alone. An entire generation is growing up with the idea that drinking water comes in small plastic bottles. Indeed, committed tap-water drinkers are far more likely to be older than devoted bottled-water drinkers.

Like iPods and cell phones, bottled water is private, portable, and individual. It’s factory- sealed and untouched by human hands-a far cry from the public water fountain. (Fiji exploits this subliminal germophobia with its slogan “Untouched by Man,” as does a company called Ice Rocks that sells “hygienic ice cubes”-springwater hermetically packaged in disposable plastic.) Somehow, we’ve become a nation obsessed with hygiene and sterility. Never, outside of an epidemic, have we been more afraid of our own bodies. Supermarkets provide antibacterial wipes for shopping cart handles. Passengers bring their own linens to cover airline pillows. Supermarkets wrap ears of corn in plastic: corn still in its husk! (The downside, besides mountains of waste, is the development of super-resistant bacteria immune to most of the commonly used antibiotics.)

In Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole, Benjamin Barber argues that consumer culture has turned adult citizens into children by catering to our narcissistic desires and conditioning us to passionately embrace certain brands and products as a necessary part of our lifestyles. Is it narcissism that pulls people into stores the second they feel thirsty? Or is it a need for emotional succor?

City dwellers walk down the street swigging; they stand in conversation and mark time with discreet sips. You see it in lines at the movies and in cars on the freeway. (But only in the United States, Michael Mascha, the bottled water expert I’d enticed to sample water with me, says. “In Europe, no one walks down the street sucking on a bottle of water. We wait and we have a nice meal.”) Surely these people have access to water at the end of their journey and are in no danger of desiccating on the spot. No, this is water bottle as security blanket.”


Peter Martin is the economics correspondent for Australia’s two leading newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He blogs at peter martin’s blog, peter’s picks and twitter.


Here is the original post:
So how’d we get to be buying all this bottled water in the first place?

Has the High Court imposed spending constraint on the Commonwealth?

Has the High Court imposed spending constraint on the Commonwealth?

2009-07-09 16:38:10 from Andrew Norton - Observations from Carlton’s Lone Classical Liberal
—————————————————

In the Fairfax broadsheets this morning, constitutional law academic George Williams gives his reading of the High Court’s judgment in Pape v Commissioner of Taxation and the Commonwealth of Australia.

As readers may recall, earlier in the year UNE academic Bryan Pape challenged the constitutional validity of the government’s tax bonus payments. Unlike the whinging cultural offspring of the welfare state who missed out on it, Pape was among other things seeking an injunction stopping the ATO paying him the money.

The High Court decided against him, but as is common in constitutional cases there were many different arguments made. Williams argues that though the Commonwealth persuaded the Court on enough of these to get a verdict in its favour, comments made by the judges on their other arguments raise questions about the validity of other Commonwealth spending.

The issue here is that the Commonwealth has long spent money on things for which it has no legislative power under the Constitution. Various additional spending powers have been read into the Constitution as relating to the executive power of the Commonwealth or an implied ‘nationhood’ power. As Justice Mason put it in 1975:

there is to be deduced from the existence and character of the Commonwealth as a national government and from the presence of ss 51(xxxix) and 61 a capacity to engage in enterprises and activities peculiarly adapted to the government of a nation and which cannot otherwise be carried on for the benefit of the nation.”

This seems to be the main legal basis for general research funding in Australia (though research relating to subjects that are expressly Commonwealth powers would clearly be justified on the text of the Constitution).

On my quick reading of the Pape case, Chief Justice French and Justice Heydon are nationhood power sceptics. Justices Hayne and Kiefel reject the view that the Commonwealth can spend on anything it chooses, rejecting an argument by the Commonwealth that it has power from this source to legislate for the ‘national economy’. That’s four of seven going for constraint.

There are ways around constitutional issues, such as tied grants to the states, and arguably most of this spending survives less because it has a clear legal basis than because there is nobody to challenge it in the High Court.

I will wait with interest expert legal commentary on whether the status of research spending and other spending based on imaginative reading of the Constitution is called into question by this judgment.

Read the original:
Has the High Court imposed spending constraint on the Commonwealth?

But it’s the men who are losing the jobs

But it’s the men who are losing the jobs

2009-07-09 14:57:51 from Peter Martin - Economics, Canberra, human behaviour
—————————————————

Graph from Scott Haslem at UBS


Peter Martin is the economics correspondent for Australia’s two leading newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He blogs at peter martin’s blog, peter’s picks and twitter.


See the original post:
But it’s the men who are losing the jobs

Up, up and away!!!

Up, up and away!!!

2009-07-09 14:20:01 from Peter Martin - Economics, Canberra, human behaviour
—————————————————
We’re losing the glooms

Australian consumers have smothered thoughts of recession as the International Monetary Fund has sharply revised up its forecasts, staking its reputation on a stronger than expected global recovery next year.

The IMF expects global growth of 2.5 per cent in 2010, a sharp upgrade on its forecast of 1.9 per cent in April.

China will grow by 7.5 per cent this year and 8.5 next year, both upgrades of 1 percentage point on its April forecast.

Even Japan is to grow far more strongly than expected, rebounding 1.7 per cent next year, up from 0.5 per cent…

The IMF expects the economies of Europe and the United States to remain weak.

The Fund credits “public intervention,” with the improved outlook, but notes that “the global recession is not over, and the recovery is expected to be slow.”

At home Australian shoppers have effectively declared “recession” over producing by far the biggest jump in consumer confidence in the 34-year history of the Westpac-Melbourne Institute measure.

In the space of two months the index has soared 23 per cent to the point where optimists now clearly outnumber pessimists in each of the forward-looking questions the institute asks about the future.

There are 2 per cent more optimists than pessimists when asked about economic conditions over the next 12 months, 22 per cent more optimists when asked about conditions over the next 5 years, 24 per cent more optimists when asked whether now is a major time to buy a major household item, and and 17 per cent more optimists when asked about family finances in the year ahead.

“Clearly we are dealing with much larger forces than the ones that typically drive
confidence,” said Westpac chief economist Bill Evans who confessed that he was astounded by the results. “The stand out force must be the huge financial handouts introduced to counter the global financial crisis.”

In an extraordianry endorsement Mr Evans said the success of the Rudd government’s government’s stimulus package in boosting confidence would be “a lesson to other governments including the United States.”

“The key is not the direct impact of increasing spending capacity, those two big handouts only represent 2 per cent of GDP. The key is to restore confidence, and the government’s approach seems to have been more successful than either tax cuts or direct spending.”

The confidence index has jumped from 88 to 109 since the May budget, where a level of 100 indicates that pessimists and optimists are evenly balanced.

The measure sees confidence higher than at any time since the very early days of the financial crisis in December 2007 and a full 38 per cent higher than a year aog.

Importantly optimists now outnumber pessimists in every income group, every occupational group, and in every category of home ownership.

Only when it comes to voting intention is there a clear difference in consumer confidence, with pessimists slightly outweighing optimists among Coalition voters with an index number of 99.2. The confidence measure among Labor voters exceeds 118.

Separately released figures show the number of new housing loans climbing a further 2.2 per cent in May to a 16-month high.

First home-buyers accounted for a record 29 per cent of new home loans according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, with lending for construction up 8 per cent in the the month and 55 per cent over six months.

Published in today’s SMH and Age

imfweojuly2009pdf

Consuemr Sentiment July 2009pdf


Westpac Chief Economist, Bill Evans, commented, “This is unquestionably a stunning
result. My personal view had been that given that last month we saw the second largest
increase in the Index since we started measuring the Index in 1974 any rise in July would
have been a great result. The news on the variables that traditionally impact the Index had
generally been downbeat. Despite this, sentiment has posted another strong gain with the
Index now printing an increase of 23.2% over the last 2 months – the largest 2 month
increase in the Index since the survey began in 1975. And it is the largest increase by a
substantial margin. The second largest 2 month increase was 18.8% in March 1992 when
households were finally convinced that the Australian economy was coming out of
recession.

“This is now the highest level of the Index since December 2007. It is 38.5% above its
level a year ago and at 109.4 optimists decisively out-number pessimists for the first time
since December 2007.

“This rise is despite no boost from the traditional drivers of confidence – petrol prices
actually increased by 3.6%; the Reserve Bank left rates on hold in June despite its
maintaining its easing bias; we even saw one bank modestly raising mortgage rates
despite no rate change from the Reserve Bank; the equity market rally has stalled since
the last survey registering a modest fall of 3.6%; and the rise in the Australian dollar has
been arrested. International news has been mixed. China’s recovery has gathered pace
but it has become apparent that market optimism about an early recovery in the major
economies has been misplaced with global sharemarkets down by 3.7% since the last
survey.

“Last month we indicated that a key explanation for the near record jump in the Index was
the relief that households would have felt when reading that Australia had dodged a
recession with the release of the March quarter national accounts. This is likely to have
been a supporting reason behind the July result – with notable rises in sentiment towards
the economic outlook. However, we suspect there have been other factors at work as well.

“Clearly we are dealing with much larger forces than the ones that typically drive
confidence. The stand out force must be the huge financial handouts introduced by the
Government to counter the global financial crisis. Note that the handouts came in two
tranches. The first tranche of $8.4bn was paid mainly to pensioners and carers in
December and the second of $12.7bn has been paid to low /medium income earners over
the March/May period. After Sentiment and spending failed to respond to the first tranche
there was some criticism that the payments had been “wasted”. In hindsight it appears that
this first tranche may have been too narrowly based and that those receiving the payments
were initially cautious given the avalanche of disturbing information associated with the
global financial crisis. No such criticism can be levelled at the second tranche. It has now
been almost fully disbursed and has resulted in an instant boost to retail sales and
supported this surge in confidence.

“The unexpected resilience of the employment figures has also played a role. Households
whose exposure to the sharemarket had been limited had expected that the major impact
of the global financial crisis on their welfare would have been through the jobs market.

However, over the last two months the unemployment rate has remained steady. It
appears that firms which only a year ago were nominating a shortage of quality labour as
the major constraint on their businesses are now hoarding labour. The lead indicators are
suggesting that firms have sharply curtailed plans to employ new workers but the ongoing
switch from full time to part time highlights firms’ efforts to retain workers. Workers are
feeling more secure in their jobs. As of June, the Westpac-Melbourne Institute measure of
job security1 has improved by 12% since its low in February, although it is still 20% lower
than a year ago. We will release the latest update of this index tomorrow. The Consumer
Sentiment Index is now at its highest level since December 2007 when the unemployment
rate was 4.3% compared with the current reading of 5.7%.

“The success which the government’s stimulus package has achieved in boosting
confidence will be a lesson to other governments including the US which have taken
different approaches in their stimulus packages. The key is not the direct impact of
increasing spending capacity - even these two huge handouts still only represent 2% of
GDP. The key is to restore confidence and this policy approach as the first stage of a
comprehensive program seems to have been more successful than tax cuts or direct
spending.

“The lift in Confidence appears to have spread to the housing market. In May we added a
special question to the Survey asking households about their expectations for house
prices. In May, only 32% of respondents expected house prices to rise over the next 12
months. In the July survey that proportion has increased to 52%. And the rise has not
been due to over exuberant First Home Buyers. Respondents in the 35-54 age bracket
have increased their confidence levels from 28% to 53%.

“Risks still remain. The handouts have now been curtailed. The second stage of the
government’s stimulus package - the $14.7bn spending over 2009/10 mainly directed at
schools is unlikely to have a similar impact on confidence. Meanwhile the unemployment
rate is set to rise further (we expect it to reach 7.5% by year’s end). Even if there are
limited job reductions the lack of new hiring will mean the natural increase in the workforce
will not be absorbed and the unemployment rate will rise. We still expect, despite an
improving outlook for consumer spending, that second quarter GDP will print negative,
reviving recessionary concerns. Evidence from the last recession points to confidence
levels taking a solid hit once the unemployment rate starts to rise quickly.

“Four of the five components of the Index increased. In particular respondents were
positive about the economic outlook. “Expected economic conditions over the next 12
months” increased by 19.6%; “Expected economic conditions over the next 5 years”
increased by 15.7%. Assessments of their own finances were more subdued. “Family
finances over the next 12 months” increased by 3%; “Family finances compared to a year
ago” fell by 0.9%; “Whether now is a good time to buy major household items” increased
by 9.5%. Note that this latter component actually fell last month by 1.6% despite the 12.7%
rise in the overall Index. Research shows this component is a particularly reliable lead
indicator of overall spending so its strong rise is a very encouraging point for retailers.

“Yesterday we saw the latest Statement from the Governor following the Reserve Bank’s
Board meeting in July. While maintaining the general sentiment, “some scope for further
easing of monetary policy” the rhetoric in the Statement was substantially more up beat
than in June. This print for the Index will encourage even more optimism from the Bank.
Clearly it will be some months before a case can possibly be made to deliver on the easing
bias. In these volatile times the situation can change rapidly with the labour market and the
global economy being the most likely candidates. However we must say that the
probability of the Bank acting on its bias has diminished markedly.”, Mr. Evans said.


Peter Martin is the economics correspondent for Australia’s two leading newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He blogs at peter martin’s blog, peter’s picks and twitter.


See the original post:
Up, up and away!!!

Our job numbers still aren’t falling much

Our job numbers still aren’t falling much

2009-07-09 13:57:55 from Peter Martin - Economics, Canberra, human behaviour
—————————————————
The ABS has the story


Peter Martin is the economics correspondent for Australia’s two leading newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. He blogs at peter martin’s blog, peter’s picks and twitter.


See the original post here:
Our job numbers still aren’t falling much