Keating is right. The Reserve Bank should do more. It needs to aim for more inflation



Ashwin/Shutterstock

Chris Edmond, University of Melbourne and Bruce Preston, University of Melbourne

Former prime minister Paul Keating isn’t alone in wanting the Reserve Bank to do much more to ensure economic recovery.

In an opinion piece for major newspapers he has said it ought to be directly funding government spending rather than indirectly by buying government bonds from third parties.

But we think there’s something else the Reserve Bank can do.

Governor Philip Lowe is right to call on governments to spend more, creating “fiscal stimulus”.

But we don’t think that absolves the Reserve Bank of the need to provide more “monetary stimulus”.

Simply put, the Reserve Bank needs to create more inflation. Quite a lot more.

For years now, the bank has chronically undershot its inflation target of 2% to 3% per year. This has to stop.


Consumer price inflation since the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target


ABS Consumer Price Index, Australia

Inflation plays a vital role in government finances, through its influence on nominal income growth. Higher nominal income growth lowers outstanding debt as a fraction of income.

To appreciate the size of the effect, if average inflation runs at 1.5% per year rather than 2.5% per year (the bank’s central target), after a decade prices will be roughly 10% lower.




Read more:
No big bounce: 2020-21 economic survey points to a weak recovery getting weaker, amid declining living standards


As a consequence, public debt as a fraction of national income will be 10% higher, and that’s before taking into account the revenue implications of lower inflation.

Too much inflation creates its own problems, but so does too little.

Of course, the Reserve Bank’s options are limited right now. Short term interest rates are effectively zero and can’t go much lower without turning negative, an idea the bank has so far resisted.

The bank needs to commit to “too much” inflation

But there are things the bank can do, and they involve making clear its plans for when inflation recovers.

When economic growth revives, be it in 12 or 24 months, the bank will face a choice between raising rates to more normal levels, or continuing to keep them extraordinarily low.

The RBA should do the latter and promise serious inflation, more than it is comfortable with, for some time to come.




Read more:
Price-level targeting: how inflation-focused central banks can squeeze more from interest rates


Promising to overshoot its target band will raise inflation expectations and then inflation itself, lowering the real interest rate.

This will buttress the recovery, supporting economic growth. It will also greatly improve the state of government finances.

How much inflation should the RBA generate?

It should aim for average inflation of 2-3% over a long window, at least ten years.

This will place a clear upper bound on how much inflation is appropriate over the long term, while requiring substantial inflation for some time to make up for the sustained undershooting of its target.

It’s being tried in the United States

Such a policy might sound unusual. And there would be protests about credibility and the risks of changing institutional arrangements during a crisis.

But the United States Federal Reserve recently adopted such a policy after an extensive review.

There’s no reason Australia’s Reserve Bank couldn’t do the same.

As it happens, hardly any formal change is required. Its Statement on the Conduct of Monetary Policy says its goal is 2 to 3% inflation “on average, over time.”

So there’s no need to change the wording, merely the interpretation.

It could make clear that a practical change had taken place by referring to the new regime as a “price-level target”, since targeting inflation over a long time is equivalent to targeting a path for the overall level of prices.

It’d hold the bank to account

Regardless of the label, such a clearly enunciated approach would make monetary policy more effective and help the government with its finances.

And that’s not all. An average inflation target would provide a clearer benchmark against which to assess the bank’s performance and thus strengthen the accountability of one of our most important institutions.

Too often in the past the bank has excused its failure to hit its inflation target by appeals to a vague and shifting list of factors outside of its control.




Read more:
Vital Signs. Yet another year of steady rates. What’s the point of the RBA inflation target?


While some excuses may have merit, the existing regime does not well communicate how such undershooting determines what the bank will do in the future.

By contrast, an average inflation target would clearly communicate that whatever the excuses for undershooting, future policy will be set to overshoot until average inflation is back on target.

It’s appropriate for fiscal policy to take the lead right now. But monetary policy has to be ready to do its job too.The Conversation

Chris Edmond, Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne and Bruce Preston, Professor of Economics, University of Melbourne

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

Reserve Bank ‘dallies with indolence’ instead of helping government pursue full employment: Paul Keating


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Former prime minister Paul Keating has launched an extraordinary attack on the Reserve Bank, accusing it of having “one of its dalliances with indolence”, and describing it as “the Reverse Bank”.

Keating, who was treasurer in the Hawke government and once boasted of having the Reserve Bank in his pocket, said the bank’s job was “to help the government meet the task of full employment” and it was failing in this.

He criticised its officials for being “the high priests” of incrementalism, rather than doing what the situation called for.

His outburst, in a statement issued on Wednesday, followed a speech this week by the bank’s deputy governor Guy Debelle who canvassed the pros and cons of options for further monetary policy action if the bank’s board decided it was needed.

These included buying bonds further out along the curve, foreign exchange intervention, lowering rates without going into negative territory, and moving to negative rates.

Keating labelled Debelle’s contribution “meandering thoughts”.

“Knowing full well that monetary policy can now no longer add to nominal demand – something that now, only fiscal policy is capable of doing, the Reserve Bank is way behind the curve in supporting the government in its budgetary funding measures,” Keating said.

“For a moment, it showed some unlikely form in pursuing its 0.25% bond yield target for three year Treasury bonds and a low interest facility for banks.

“But now, after 600,000 superannuation accounts were cleared and closed down, with 500,000 of those belonging to people under 35 – a withdrawal of $35 billion in personal savings, and further demands arising from the employment hiatus in Victoria, [Debelle] yesterday strolled out with debating points about what further RBA action might be contemplated.”

Keating said that in his office when he was treasurer, the bank was nicknamed “the Reverse Bank”, because it was too slow raising rates in the late 1980s and too slow lowering them in the early 1990s – which gave Australia “a recession deeper than it would have otherwise had”.

As treasurer he’d “worn the cost of the bank’s indolence in the task of smashing inflation”. And as a measure of his giving the bank more discretion, as prime minister he’d worn the “great political cost” of the bank’s rate rises in 1994.

“As history has shown, when a real crisis is upon us the RBA is invariably late to the party. And so it is again,” Keating said.

The bank’s act had two objectives – price stability (not a problem at the moment) and full employment, Keating said.

“The Act says the Bank and the government should endeavour to agree on policies which meet that objective – in this case, employment.”

The bank “should be explicitly supporting the government so the country does not experience a massive fall in employment”, hitting particularly younger workers.

But instead of that, Debelle “conducts a guessing competition on what incremental step the Bank might take to help,” Keating said.

“These are the high priests of the incremental. Making absolutely certain that not a bank toe will be put across the line of central bank orthodoxy.

“Certainly not buying bonds directly from the Treasury – wash your mouth out on that one – what would they say about us at the annual BIS meeting in Basel?

“Not even ambitiously buying sufficient bonds in the secondary market, like the European Central Bank or the Bank of Japan.”

He said the bank should “shoulder the load. And in a super-low inflationary world, that load is funding fiscal policy. Mountainous sums of it.

“In an economic emergency of the current dimension that means putting the orthodoxy into perspective and doing what is sensibly required.”

Like other central banks, the Reserve Bank “has become a sort of deity, where lesser mortals might inquire, however respectfully, what the exalted priests might be thinking or have in mind for their prosperity or the country at large,” Keating said.

“The Governor and his deputies do not wear clerical collars and black suits. But that is the only difference in their comport and attitude.”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.

Paul Keating unleashes vitriolic attack on Nine’s takeover of Fairfax


Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Paul Keating, architect of the Hawke government’s cross-media rules, has called on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to put the Nine-Fairfax merger under “high scrutiny”, and declared Nine has the “ethics of an alley cat”.

In a scathing statement, Keating said the takeover was “an exceptionally bad development”.

If Nine had a majority of the stock, as announced, it “will run the editorial policy,” he said.

Keating said that for more than half a century, Nine had never done other than display “the opportunism and ethics of an alley cat.

“There has been no commanding ethical or moral basis for the conduct of its news and information policy. Through various changes of ownership, no one has lanced the carbuncle at the centre of Nine’s approach to news management. And, as sure as night follows day, that pus will inevitably leak into Fairfax.

“For the country, this is a great pity”.

The government last year liberalised the media law, facilitating more concentration.




Read more:
A modern tragedy: Nine-Fairfax merger a disaster for quality media


Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull welcomed the announcement and said the parties did not expect it to face any regulatory hurdles.

“I think bringing them together will strengthen both of them.” he said. Television, online and print journalism was a “very tough, competitive environment nowadays”.

“The arrival all of the online news services has made the media so much more competitive than it used to be, whether it’s the competition for newspapers or whether it’s the competition in the television area with streaming services like Netflix,” Turnbull said.

“So I think bringing them together enables two strong Australian brands with great, very long traditions to be able to be more secure. So on that basis I welcome it”.

Communications Minister Mitch Fifield said the government’s “historic media reforms” had “created an environment where Australian media organisations have a wider range of options as to how they combine in order to support their viability to ensure that they survive” in the age of the internet.

But Keating said the media free-for-all the Turnbull government was permitting under its new law would “result in an effective and dramatic close down in diversity and with it, opinion’.

“It is true that the technology has brought myriad voices to a public eager for diversity of information.

“But the atomisation of web-based content, much of it other than local, cannot in terms of impact, be compared with the big local media players, particularly in consolidations of the kind announced today.”

The “takeover of Fairfax by Channel Nine will change the news landscape of Australia altogether.”

Keating said that notwithstanding the disruption caused by international platforms such as Google and Facebook “the answer for Australia is diversity of income streams for Australia’s majors and not a closedown in news and content with major print being taken over by major television”.

Keating has had some major run ins with Fairfax over the years. But he had a different tone towards it on Thursday.

“Fairfax spent decades missing all the signals about the rise of the digital economy when it could have put itself in a position of relative commercial independence.

“That notwithstanding, the current management has, in the circumstances, done a better than reasonable job in creating income sources to allow the company to preserve its editorial independence, especially in print.”

Keating said that if the government really had its way, Australia would face this much closed down landscape without the ABC being an independent national broadcaster.

“On competition grounds and that of the imperative of local diversity, the Competition Commissioner should put this proposal under high scrutiny,” Keating said.

He said that while the web brought increased diversity “the big wholesalers of news and information in Australia have always had the dominant impact. They have been the big dogs on the block. Today’s announcement means that in future, they will operate as a pack.

“The cross-media rule at least split that dominance, giving the community various streams and alternatives within which to think. Today’s announced takeover of Fairfax by Channel Nine brings the big wholesalers back with a vengeance. And with it, were it to be permitted, a major shutting in of diversity”.

Labor’s communications shadows, Michelle Rowland and Stephen Jones said: “Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world. This proposed merger means it is about to get even more concentrated.”

The ConversationIt meant public broadcaters, the ABC and SBS, had never been more important, they said.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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