Vital Signs. Do deficits matter any more?


Richard Holden, UNSW

It seems that whoever wins the White House in 2020, the US federal deficit will blow up.

President Donald Trump has already signed into law massive tax cuts that are estimated to expand the deficit by at least US$1.5 trillion over the next decade.

The list of Democrats seeking their party’s presidential nomination has moved into double digits, but there aren’t many fiscal conservatives among them.

Bernie Sanders looks set to try and outdo his own 2016 campaign and its big-spending proposals that include “Medicare for all” and free public tertiary education. Other leading contenders such as senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris have announced similar plans.

And the rock star du jour of US progressive politics, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or @AOC as the cool kids say), has gone even further with her “Green New Deal” — a grab bag of gigantic spending projects being presented as an environmental policy. They are estimated to cost between US$51 trillion and US$93 trillion over a decade.

The big question amid all this red ink is: does it matter?

Red ink for a return

There have generally been two schools of thought on this. On the conservative side, elected representatives and commentators have emphasised that higher spending eventually results in higher interest rates as borrowers compensate for risk, and higher taxes as a result. In short, there’s no free lunch.

The more liberal position on deficits is that it depends what the government spends the money on. Economic stimulus during a downturn, such as during the Great Recession of 2008, is a good idea provided that it is temporary. And even in ordinary economic times, there may be large investments in physical and social infrastructure that have high returns, far exceeding the government’s cost of borrowing.

If spending on early-childhood education has double-digit rates of return and the government can borrow long-term at 3%, these investments are a no-brainer.

Notice the logic in that argument. The returns need to be carefully assessed and compared to the actual government cost of borrowing.

Not red ink without reason

Various commentators on the political left – explified by Paul Krugman of the New York Times – argue that this logic is licence for serious government spending on infrastructure, but with an eye to the overall size of the spending. As Krugman puts it

Am I saying that Democrats should completely ignore budget deficits? No; if and when they’re ready to move on things like some form of Medicare for All, the sums will be so large that asking how they’ll be paid for will be crucial.

I have said repeatedly in this column and elsewhere that the same is true in Australia. We can borrow cheaply, there are high-return government investments to be made, and we are suffering from “secular stagnation” – a protracted period of lower growth.

But that doesn’t mean that @AOC’s socialist (her own term) wish list can be funded in a consequence-free way just because the US prints its own currency.

Accompanying the @AOC-Sanders-Warren agenda is a cottage industry of “heterodox” economists like Stephanie Kelton who say deficits don’t matter for countries that issue their own currencies. Why? Because they can always print more. They risk hyperinflation if they do enough of it, but heterodox economists argue that’s unlikely.

Except in Weimar Germany. And Zimbabwe. And Venezuela.

The recent tragedy in Venezuela is instructive. When the crude oil price collapsed in 2014 the government was left with a huge deficit, but still needed to pay the salaries of government workers and the military. So it printed money. With more money in the economy, but no increase in the number of things available to buy, the price of goods climbed.

That meant the government had to print still more money for the workers whose incomes bought less, which led to more inflation, more money printing, even higher prices, and pretty quickly hyperinflation of over 1,200,000%.

Just because Australia has avoided hyperinflation…

Economists who promote the idea of large deficits point out that that hasn’t happened in Australia or the United States, but one of the reasons for that is that they have avoided really large deficits.

After the next US election, who knows.

In a timely warning, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the US Senate this week: “the idea that deficits don’t matter for countries that can borrow in their own currencies I think is just wrong”.

More importantly, the idea that deficits need not matter is dangerous.

It is a proposition with zero appeal among mainstream economists, but populist politicians are drawn to it and are increasingly keen to sell it to the public.

Let’s be clear. We should invest more in education, health, high-speed rail and child care if the numbers stack up, even if it means increasing deficits. But deficits do matter. We would be unwise to think we could do it without limit.




Read more:
Now is the time to plan how to fight the next recession


The Conversation


Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisements

View from The Hill: Morrison’s authority deficit on show at home and abroad


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

When a prime minister has diminished authority, people don’t bother so
much with the niceties.

Scott Morrison admitted on Wednesday that Julia Banks had not given
him notice of her intention to announce in parliament at midday on
Tuesday that she was jumping ship. Asked by Alan Jones, “Did
she tell you?” Morrison said, “No she didn’t and of course that’s
disappointing”.

This was surprising in itself – it would have been normal courtesy to
inform the PM.

In other circumstances, however, it mightn’t have mattered – and
Morrison has a thick skin.

But to have his 11:45am news conference – which was called to put out
the date of next year’s budget – hijacked by word filtering through of
Banks’ bombshell was highly embarrassing.

It said everything about a prime minister not in touch with what was
going on in his own ranks.

Then on Wednesday it was revealed that Morrison does not have a bilateral meeting with President Trump scheduled when they’re at the G20, for which he departs on Thursday.

The official explanation from the Prime Minister’s Office was lame. A
spokesman said: “The PM will no doubt have the opportunity to touch
base [with Trump] during the G20 meetings. Given we have no pressing
bilateral issues at the moment and the PM had an extensive opportunity
with VP Pence at APEC, there is no pressing need for a formal
bilateral at this stage. The relationship is being well managed.”

There is speculation of a so-called “pull aside” – an informal meeting on the fly, but the impression is that the Americans are treating the Morrison government somewhat dismissively. It seems rather galling after all the recent talk of the government’s pivot to the Pacific and co-operation with the US in the Manus naval base.

A meeting with the Vice-President is no substitute for one with the President.

The seeming brush off can be put down to what might be expected from a
capricious president. But it was quickly seen by some as a judgement by the Americans that Morrison won’t be in office very long.

Meanwhile the Liberal party meltdown has caused Treasurer Josh
Frydenberg, who is deputy Liberal leader, to drop plans to accompany
Morrison to the G20. His place will be taken by Finance Minister
Mathias Cormann.

Pressed in Parliament about his change of plans Frydenberg could only dodge.

When Frydenberg won the deputy leadership (by an overwhelming vote,
defeating Greg Hunt and Steve Ciobo) in the August mayhem, he was
regarded as a consensus figure who commands considerable respect
across the party. He will need to draw on all that respect in the next
few months.

As if he didn’t have a big enough job getting on top of his Treasury
portfolio in the run up to the December budget update and
then an early budget, Frydenberg is finding himself strongly tested
in the deputy role, which becomes especially important in an unsettled
and fractious party.

The Liberals this week are shell-shocked and unnerved after the
Victorian rout and both the fact and implications of Banks’ desertion.

The parliamentary party is flakey on many fronts. Turnbull supporters seem to have become angrier as time has gone on. Continued talk about the Liberals’ “women problem” is undermining the government’s efforts to appeal to female voters. High profile former Liberal deputy Julie Bishop is off the leash, with provocative comments on subjects ranging from energy policy to Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s parliamentary eligibility.

The Dutton issue hangs menacingly over the government. If the
opposition can muster the numbers to have him referred to the High
Court, it would be seriously destabilising.

Dutton would not have to resign from parliament while the case was
heard but to have him remain on the frontbench (as Barnaby Joyce did)
would see the government distracted by a fresh crisis.

Despite the Coalition falling further into minority government with
the loss of Banks, the opposition hasn’t this week moved against
Dutton.

He is absent from parliament after injuring his arm and Labor
would prefer, for the sake of appearances, not to act in his absence.
More to the point, however, it does not yet have the numbers locked
in.

It needs six of the now seven crossbenchers, and whether they can be
corralled appears to be a day-to-day proposition. Banks and Kerryn
Phelps, sworn in on Monday, on Tuesday discussed Dutton’s eligibility
in a meeting with Attorney-General Christian Porter.

The government has five more sitting days to struggle through before
parliament finishes for the year. It has produced a parliamentary
calendar for next year, with its April 2 budget, that provides for
only some 10 sitting days before the election is called for May 11 or
18. There are no sittings at all in March.

The minimal sittings speak volumes about a government that lacks the
numbers in the House (its position could even worsen, if rightwinger
Craig Kelly, who faces losing preselection, defected to the crossbench) and usually is at its chaotic worst when parliament is in
session.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Battle won. Our budget woes are behind us


Warren Hogan, University of Technology Sydney

The government’s final budget outcome for 2017-18 is a deficit of A$10.1 billion. That’s an extraordinary A$8.1 lower than the May estimate just months ago, and more than A$19 billion lower than when the 2017-18 budget was originally put together the previous May.

The deficit, a mere 0.6% of gross domestic product, is the smallest in the run of ten that began in the global financial crisis of 2008-09.

The result tells us something important about the Australian economy ten years on from the crisis.




Read more:
Budget deficit comes in at $10.1 billion, in boost for early
return to surplus



First, it’s performing better than expected.

Not only is it growing faster than most forecasters expected, it has been producing more jobs and less inflation than such growth would have produced in the past.

This has allowed much low interest rates than would have once been the case and supported investment across the economy.

Back to normal

So good is the government’s financial position that the heavy lifting has been all but been done.

A return to budget balance is entirely possible this financial year.

Indeed, for most purposes the budget is already balanced.

Federal government revenues and expenses are each about 25% of GDP. Given the complexity and natural variability of the budget and the economy, an outcome within 0.5% of GDP from balance is basically in balance.

The fact that two-thirds of the originally projected 2017-18 budget deficit has vanished due to “forecast error” makes the point.

Fiscal policy is effectively back to normal, with plenty of spending power in reserve should the economy deteriorate.

Better confidence, for now

Solid government finances will support confidence, not least among households that are used to worrying about large deficits boosting future tax burdens or eating away at government services.

That isn’t to say that everything is baked in.

The economy and government finances can go the other way. But the task of budget repair, which started years ago under Treasurer Wayne Swan, is virtually complete. Any further substantive budget tightening will produce growing surpluses rather than shrinking deficits.

More profits, less welfare

Over the past 15 months the big improvement in the government’s financial position has come in two phases.

The first surprise was a revenue windfall received last summer. This was mostly because of higher commodity prices and the boost this gave to corporate profits.

Corporate income tax receipts are 8.7% higher than originally projected, resulting in an almost A$7 billion windfall for the budget. This represents about a third of the A$19 billion budget improvement.




Read more:
Morrison’s return to surplus built on the back of higher tax – Parliamentary Budget Office


This was well known by the time of the May budget and was responsible for most of the improvement in the budget bottom line between May 2017 and May 2018.

The next phase was a substantial drop in government payments near the end of the financial year just concluded.

This was not factored into the May 2018 budget. Most of it is made up of lower welfare and social security payments, partly in response to the stronger economy, and partly due to much lower than anticipated spending on disability assistance.

Disability-related payments, both in terms of payments to states and National
Disability Insurance Scheme spending, are about A$3 billion lower than expected in May last year.

And improvement all around

The rest of the good news is spread across the board. Income tax receipts are higher due to stronger employment growth. The government has collected more duties and excise than it expected. Pension payments have been a little lower than expected, as have infrastructure-related payments to the states.

Because the presentation of the final budget outcomes does not come with any formal update of budget forecasts, the treasurer and his finance minister had very little to say about the government’s fiscal strategy other than to reinforce that its jobs, growth and budget repair strategy is on track.

They’ll say more in the midyear economic and fiscal update (also called MYEFO) in December.

Question time

Ministers Frydenberg and Cormann were asked a number of questions at their Tuesday press conference that they chose not to answer properly.

I thought I would take the liberty of doing it for them.

REPORTER: So does this outcome increase the likelihood that you will return to surplus sooner than predicted?

MY ANSWER: It most certainly it does. The better result is mainly due to a stronger-than-expected economy. At the time of the budget in May 2017 the government had forecast economic growth of 2.75% for the 2017-18 financial year. As it turned out, growth came in at 2.9% and we are taking strong momentum into 2018-19.

It won’t take much to nudge the budget into surplus this year, that is, a year earlier than forecast. Simply factoring in the better baseline performance of the budget from last year should produce a deficit for 2018-19 of around A$5-8 billion. If the recent trends of higher commodity prices, a lower Australian dollar and stronger domestic economic activity persist, as they appear to be doing, then we will easily get a surplus this year.

Complicating the picture is the political cycle. With a government well behind in the polls and an election due in the next six months or so, it will be hard to resist the temptation to spend some of this recent budget improvement.

It will become a political judgment for the new prime minister and his cabinet. Is the political benefit of presenting a budget surplus greater than the electoral impact of new spending measures?

REPORTER: And do you continue to adhere to the budget discipline that all new spending must be accompanied by savings in equal amount?

MY ANSWER: The government should be commended for keeping real spending growth to just 1.9%, the lowest in a generation. It is projecting it to fall even further, to around 1.6% over the next few years. With a tough election contest ahead, my guess is that we may see some slippage on government spending.

REPORTER: You are out by 40% to 45% on the deficit you published in May this year. That’s a wild variation in just 6 weeks. Should Treasury be doing better than that, basically?

MY ANSWER: Revenues total just under A$450 billion and expenses total just over $450 billion. The deficit figure is the result of the calculation of the small difference between those two big numbers.

Rather than thinking about an A$8 billion miss on a A$18 billion deficit we should be thinking about A$8 billion on the $450 billion revenue and expense base.

Instead of a 40% variation, the real variation is less than 2%.

Given that the Treasury only had the March quarter national accounts at its disposal when pulling together the May Budget forecasts and considering the propensity of the Bureau of Statistics to revise the national accounts, the fact that the misses are less than 2% is actually pretty amazing.

The economy is complex and ever changing.

Economic forecasting is hard. Understanding the relationship between government revenues and an economy experiencing significant industrial structural change is far from a perfect science.The Conversation

Warren Hogan, Industry Professor, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Budget deficit comes in at $10.1 billion, in boost for early return to surplus


File 20180925 85755 up06mj.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Estimates out, but happy. Mathias Cormann and Josh Frydenberg announce the smallest deficit in a decade.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The budget outcome for 2017-18 shows a deficit of A$10.1 billion –
dramatically less than expected in May, and just 0.6% of GDP.

In this year’s May budget, a mere four months ago, the outcome for the last financial year was forecast to be just over A$18 billion, already revised well down on the more than A$29 billion estimate in the 2017 budget.

The drivers of the better-than-anticipated result were stronger
revenue and lower spending than earlier expected.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Finance Minister Mathias Corman said in
a statement: “At A$10.1 billion, just 0.6 per cent of gross domestic
product (GDP), the underlying cash deficit is the smallest in ten
years.

“Stronger economic growth and much stronger employment growth than
anticipated at the time of the 2017-18 budget have driven increases in
personal income tax and company tax receipts, with total receipts
$13.4 billion higher than expected at the time of the budget.

“Total payments were A$6.9 billion lower than forecast at budget time,
including as a result of lower welfare payments with more Australians
in paid work. Welfare dependency for working age Australians is now at
its lowest level in 25 years and in 2017-18, there were 90,000 fewer
working age Australians on welfare,” they said.

“Real GDP in 2017-18 was stronger than anticipated in the 2017-18 budget.”

Last week Standard & Poor’s ratings agency reaffirmed Australia’s
triple A credit
rating. Frydenberg said Australia was one of only 10 countries with a AAA
credit rating from the three major agencies.

He told a news conference that the budget outcome confirmed the budget
was on the path back to balance in 2019-20.

The mid-year budget update will come in December, with the revisions
at that time setting the scene for the run into the election a few
months later, with the government making economic and fiscal
management a key plank in its campaign.

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said the final budget outcome “shows the
deficit came in almost four times worse than forecast in the Liberal
Party’s first budget. This is after the Liberal Party’s massive cuts
to schools, hospitals and the pension.”The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Budget update shaves growth and wage forecasts but is brighter about the deficit


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The 2017-18 budget update shows an improvement in the deficit forecast for this financial year but predicts lower economic growth and a smaller increase in wages than was expected in the May budget.

The deficit for 2017-18 is now expected to come in at A$23.6 billion, an improvement of A$5.8 billion from the May forecast, according to the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook released by Treasurer Scott Morrison and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.

Growth for this financial year is forecast to be 2.5% compared with the budget’s 2.75%, reflecting recent lower-than-expected growth in household consumption.

Nevertheless Morrison and Cormann said Australia’s growth story “remains a compelling one, and although real GDP growth has been slightly tempered in 2017-18, the trajectory is upward”. Real GDP is forecast to grow at 3% in 2018-19, the same as the budget number.

Budget update on wages

The update notes that wage growth “remains low by historical standards in both the public and private sectors and has been more subdued than expected since budget”.

Wages are forecast to increase by 2.25% through the year to the June quarter 2018 and 2.75% through the year to the June quarter 2019.

This is 0.25 of a percentage point lower in both years compared with the budget – vindicating the scepticism that economists expressed about the budget forecast being too optimistic.

The flat wages situation reflects a serious political pressure point for the government, as many people struggle with high power prices and other squeezes on their cost of living.

“Wage growth is forecast to lift as the economy strengthens, inflation picks up and excess capacity in the labour market is reduced,” the update says.

Budget receipts have been revised upwards by about A$3.6 billion in 2017-18 and A$2.8 billion over the forward estimates compared with budget time – driven mainly by company tax and superannuation tax. The company tax forecasts reflect increased profitability and enforcement activity by the Australian Taxation Office.

But “over the forward estimates, lower forecasts for wages and unincorporated business income are expected to weigh on individuals’ income tax receipts,” the update says.

The half yearly revised numbers confirm that the budget is on track to have a surplus in 2020-21. The projected surplus of A$10.2 billion in that year is A$2.7 billion better than estimated in May.

Savings measures on education and welfare

The government has announced in the update a new welfare crackdown to save money and also an alternative higher education savings package after it could not pass its earlier proposals.

Savings of A$1.2 billion over four years will be reaped by broadening the criteria for waiting periods for new migrants before they can get various welfare benefits.

The changes will extend the present two-year waiting period for a range of payments, such as Newstart, to three years, and introduce a consistent new three-year waiting period to apply to a further number of benefits such as Family Tax Benefit and Paid Parental Leave.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter said the measures “will reinforce the foundational principle that Australians’ expectation of newly arrived migrants is that they contribute socially and economically for a reasonable period before having access to our nation’s generous welfare system”.

The higher education package includes a freeze on total Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding from January 1, set at 2017 levels, and a combined limit for all tuition fee assistance under all HELP and VET Student Loans.

The government will also pursue an alternative set of HELP repayment thresholds from July 1 next year, with a new minimum repayment threshold of A$45,000, higher than the A$42,000 in the original plan. At present the threshold is A$55,000.

Most of the new higher education package doesn’t have to be legislated, thus avoiding the Senate hurdle. The previous higher education package was set to save A$2.7 billion over the forward estimates; the new one saves A$2.1 billion.

Real growth in payments over the budget period is expected to be an annual average of 1.9%. Compared with the budget, nominal payments are lower in every year of the forward estimates.

The payment to GDP ratio is expected to fall to 24.9% of GDP by 2020, slightly above the 30 year historical average.

Morrison told a joint news conference with Cormann: “As we push into the new year, there is still more work to be done but we are on the right track.

“Jobs and growth will continue to be our mission and our focus. Helping the lives of the thousands of Australians, millions of Australians, and their families and returning the budget back to balance.”

Cormann said: “This is a good set of numbers in all of the circumstances.”

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said the government remained committed to increasing the tax paid by working Australians. He said there was no mention of personal tax cuts – which Malcolm Turnbull has foreshadowed – in the update. People only got a tax rise.

He condemned the revised higher education package, saying it would particularly hit those from a lower socioeconomic background.

The ConversationThe chair of Universities Australia, Professor Margaret Gardner, said the package would leave university funding “frozen in time”. She said the blow would be hardest in areas where university attainment was lowest, such as regional areas.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The G20’s economic leadership deficit


Adam Triggs, Australian National University

Few have heard of the Baltic Dry Index. It measures the demand for bulk shipping carriers, used for international trade. It usually attracts little attention. But nine years ago this index had the undivided attention of the 20 most powerful leaders in the world.

It was when the global financial system was on a precipice. Stock markets were crashing. Credit markets were freezing. Rolling failures across financial institutions were shattering confidence. Unable to wait for monthly trade data, the Baltic Dry Index showed in real-time what many leaders feared: global trade and commerce were grinding to a halt.

Leaders faced the real prospect of another Great Depression. But they were determined not to make the mistakes of the past. They resisted a return to protectionism. They slashed interest rates and buttressed the International Monetary Fund and development banks. Over the next three years, they implemented US$5 trillion of co-ordinated fiscal stimulus, the largest in history.

That leadership is needed again today. The risks leaders face at the latest G20 meeting in Hamburg, Germany, might not be as serious as those the leaders who met in Washington faced back in 2008. But the risks are present, and leaders are disengaging with the G20’s ever-expanding agenda. They are more likely to use the G20 for cheap political point scoring than for advancing co-operation on critical global challenges.

Australia can play a role in helping the G20 to deliver this leadership.

Economic challenges

Protectionist measures are on the rise. Protectionist rhetoric is rising faster. The World Trade Organisation shows that the stock of trade-restrictive measures is growing, up 8.5% in the 12 months to May 2017 alone.

The G20’s growth agenda from 2014 is in tatters. The G20 committed to make G20 GDP 2.1% bigger by 2018. Instead, the International Monetary Fund forecasts it to fall short by almost 6%.

A strong, effective G20 is manifestly in the interests of the global community, but particularly of Australia. Three-quarters of our merchandise trade is with G20 countries. Our banks rely on them for wholesale funding. Our tourism sector relies on them for two-thirds of our tourists. Our universities rely on them for the vast majority of their students.

Critically, the G20 is an opportunity for Australia to have a say in how global governance will be shaped in the years ahead and to be a regional champion for Asia.

Through in-depth interviews with over 40 central bank governors, ministers and officials from G20 countries, my research suggests there are practical things the G20 could do to increase its relevance. Importantly, participants see Australia as a developed economy, closely integrated in Asia and which promotes the values of the open, rules-based international order. This makes Australia well placed to push for pragmatic changes to improve the G20 process, particularly having hosted the 2014 meeting.

My interviewees warned that the G20’s agenda is too heavily dictated by the host country. In 2011, when France hosted the meeting, President Nicolas Sarkozy asked UK Prime Minister David Cameron to produce a report on reforming global governance. This instantly elevated the issue and saw substantial involvement from other leaders. Australia should push for allowing more leaders to champion the issues important to them, rather than leaving it all to the host country.

Participants similarly suggested that the G20’s peer-review process is too weak. This is the process through which countries review and give advice on each other’s policies. It’s critical to the G20’s ability to generate peer pressure, which is how a non-binding forum influences policies.

But participants saw this process as being a “tick and flick” exercise, isolated to junior officials in G20 working groups. Australia should advocate to change this, elevating the peer-review process to the level of ministers, governors and leaders. This will allow the people who have political capital to raise substantive points with one another.

For the G20 to demonstrate global leadership, participants suggest that it needs a genuine agenda for growth, with a stronger focus on making growth more inclusive. The OECD has some suggestions for this, such as investment in infrastructure, education and microeconomic reforms that lift workforce participation and create new opportunities for quality investment. The IMF shows that GDP gains can be 25% larger if structural reforms like this are co-ordinated between countries.

Participants also wanted progress on trade but warned that reaching agreement has been difficult. Recent research suggests the G20 should seek to promote consistency between the plethora of global, regional and bilateral trade agreements and develop a framework for how they can be scaled up into a global, WTO-led agreement.

The research shows that countries benefit most when trade liberalisation happens globally, but the “noodle bowl” of existing trade agreements is a nightmare for exporters to navigate. Australia, as a strong advocate for free trade, is well placed to show leadership on this issue.

Outcomes on trade are also vital for inclusive growth. Research shows that the poor can afford 63% more goods and services because of free trade, more than twice the benefit that flows to the rich.

But talk is cheap. It’s easy to commit to reforms but only half of G20 commitments are being implemented.
Australia should push for a serious accountability framework to monitor implementation and identify the countries that fall short.

The ConversationA weakening of the G20 is a weakening of Australia’s international influence. Few countries have a greater incentive to put solutions on the table.

Adam Triggs, Research fellow, Australian National University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Australian Politics: 1 December 2014 – Broken Promises


ADHD: Wrong Diagnosis?


Finally, some questions are being raised about ADHD, which I think is long overdue. The link below is to an article that suggests something different.

For more visit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/diagnosing-the-wrong-deficit.html