Tag Archives: government revenues

A Poke In The Eyes For Treasury’s Panglossian View

15 May

stooges_01

Here is the excellent Leith van Onselen, chief economist at the equally excellent macrobusiness.com.au, giving the Treasury department’s panglossian view a most excellent poke in the eyes.

His affirming the substance of my slightly error-prone critique of last night only makes it the more enjoyable reading for your humble blogger (emphasis added):

To say that I am sceptical of the Budget forecasts is an understatement. Despite the Kouk’s bizarro reading, I see a number of potential problems with the Treasury’s forecasts, which appear to be based on unrealistic underlying assumptions and mis-reading of the stiff headwinds facing the economy.

First of all, consider the Treasury’s assumed growth in nominal GDP, which is forecast to expand from 3.25% in 2012-13 to 5.0% in both 2013-14 and 2014-15…

For the uninitiated, nominal GDP is the dollar value of what’s produced and earned across the economy. It’s also the measure that drives taxation revenue. Nominal GDP grew by just 2.0% in the year to December, far below real GDP growth of 3.1%, which is the quantity of goods and services produced. While the fall in nominal GDP below real GDP is unusual, having happened only a handful of times since the late-1950s, it has happened twice under the current Labor Government’s watch – during the GFC and currently – on both occasions driven by sharp falls in commodity prices (reducing the dollar value of Australia’s exports) and the terms-of-trade…

The terms of trade forecasts are very aggressive. they assume significant uplift for the March and June quarters for this year. An almost non-existent fall next year and 2% in 2014/15. These figures do not come terms with a China adjustment at all.

In light of the ongoing slump in the terms-of-trade, the Treasury’s nominal GDP forecasts appear highly optimistic. According to the Budget papers, a 1% change in the value of goods and services generates a $2.8 billion shift in the budget bottom line in the first year and a $7 billion shift in the second. Therefore, by assuming stronger growth in nominal GDP, the Treasury has likely overestimated Budget revenues and the path back to surplus.

The other area of concern with the Treasury’s outlook relates to the upcoming peak and then decline of mining capital expenditures (capex). Treasury remains of the view that mining capex will unwind in an orderly manner and that overall jobs growth will improve as the non-mining economy picks-up steam…

Given that around 10% of the Australian economy are employed in mining-related activities, mostly in areas unrelated to actual extraction (e.g. construction workers, engineers, and mining services), and that mining capex will soon go into an as yet ill-defined but likely sharp decline, Treasury’s steady-as-she-goes employment projections also appear overly optimistic.

Read the entire article here.

One RBA Chart Debunks Wayne’s Entire Budget

14 May

I am so glad that Wayne Swan is such an imbecile.

It means that, despite being sick, I can debunk his entire budget with about as much ease as taking candy from a baby.

Or a Baby Bonus from a “working family”.

All of the “estimates” and “projections” in Wayne’s 2013-14 budget are based on a critical assumption – 5% annual growth in GDP in the next two years:

Screen shot 2013-05-14 at 8.21.19 PM

Budget 2013-14 Overview, Appendix H

Really Wayne?

5% a year?

Let’s see what the RBA’s Chart Pack has to say about actual, not “forecast” GDP –

4tl-gdpgrwth

Er…

Anyone else get a sense of deja vu about this?

With good reason. In last year’s budget, Wayne forecast 5% GDP growth for the current year…

Screen shot 2013-05-14 at 8.33.33 PM

Budget 2012-13 Overview, Appendix H

… and since then, has been forced by that little thing called “REALITY” to revise it down, to 3.25% (see 1st chart).

Remember, this 35% downward revision for “GDP” growth in the current year has come during a period when, according to none other than Wayne himself, we have been enjoying the benefits of a “strong economy, low unemployment, low interest rates, and a huge (mining) investment pipeline.”

Not to mention record-high Terms of Trade.

That “huge” mining investment pipeline is rapidly closing down.

And the record-high Terms of Trade are collapsing too:

Source: macrobusiness.com.au

Source: macrobusiness.com.au

5% GDP growth next year, and the year after?

Sorry.

I don’t buy it.

Neither should you.

And since all of Wayne’s latest revenue estimates, and spending estimates, and budget deficit/surplus estimates, are based on that critical GDP growth ass-umption, I think it only fair to say that we can write off this entire budget as a(nother) very, very bad joke.

Problem is, the joke’s on all of us.

UPDATE:

A number of my Twitter followers have kindly informed me that I have made an error. Apparently, the RBA chart for GDP that I’ve referred to above is “Real” (ie, inflation adjusted) GDP, and the budget forecast I’ve referred to is “nominal” GDP.

No matter.

Given the falling Terms of Trade, the closing of that “huge” mining investment pipeline, and a likely incoming Coalition government purportedly looking to slash spending and public service jobs, I reckon even a forecast 2.75 (2013-14) and 3% (2014-15) “Real” GDP is highly unlikely:

Screen shot 2013-05-14 at 9.26.32 PM

4tl-gdpgrwth

UPDATE 2:

Thanks to Twitter follower @gregfranksimmo (EDIT: who got it from Greg Jericho, aka @GrogsGamut), the following chart of both “nominal” and “real” GDP clearly shows that nominal GDP has been declining since December 2010, and has actually been below “real” GDP for the past two quarters, while “real” GDP growth is presently barely managing 3% … despite all those wonderful (and temporary) economic “strengths” Wayne has been boasting about –

BKOYpNmCcAI780O

UPDATE 3:

Business Spectator and unabashed ALP apologist Stephen Koukoulas – he of the recent 8 – 12% house price rise prediction – tells us why the nominal GDP forecast is so important for the budget figures:

The forecasts that matter more for revenue, nominal GDP growth, are similarly understated at 3.25 per cent and 5 per cent growth respectively.

Er…

“Nominal” GDP in the Sep ’12 and Dec ’12 quarters was running below “Real” GDP, at less than 2% per annum.

5% “nominal” GDP in each of the next two years?

Chances of that are, I reckon, somewhere roughly between Buckley’s and none.

Meaning, the government’s revenue forecasts have roughly the same chances of coming to pass.

%d bloggers like this: