The AWU and GetUp!

This week’s extraordinary AFP raid on the AWU over donations made twelve years ago to GetUp! has all the hallmarks of a Godwin Grech Utegate overreach. Watching the thoroughly odious Michaelia Cash squirming in Senate Estimates over the role her staffer played in the fiasco was particularly enjoyable.

It’s almost a pity that Barnaby Joyce’s eviction by the High Court swept this story of the front page. For all Cash’s protestations about the purer than snow motivation of the ROC and the ABCC, so far neither organisation has exactly covered themselves in glory.

But the point of this post is just a comment on the funding of GetUp! that I think has been missed by the media. There’s been a lot of conjecture about whether the decision by the union to provide the seed funding to launch GetUp! was properly documented and approved, but it seems to me precious little as to why they might have done it.

I think it’s constructive to look at the decision in the context of the time it was made. Remember 2004-2007 was the term that followed the disastrous Latham-led election campaign, that resulted in Howard winning a majority in both houses. Cue WorkChoices, the sale of Telstra, and a lot of other legislation that ultimately proved the downfall of Howard.

Under those circumstances, with the federal ALP completely neutered, developing new methods of galvanising support and calling out the actions of the government seem quite reasonable, and I daresay that’s what prompted the union to look beyond the ALP to outfits like GetUp!

It’s easy to look at these decisions through the lens of how things are today, but sometimes a bit of context is necessary.

GST: It’s not a pie

Greg Jericho writes in his latest piece “Scott Morrison’s next trick – selling a GST revenue cut to every state bar one” that:

Perhaps the most accurate statement in the Productivity Commission draft report on horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) is when it notes that “there is a dearth of public understanding of how HFE works, and this is compounded by the lack of a strong neutral voice in public discussion”.

He’s probably right, but all the graphs and charts in the article don’t really cut through to the heart of the matter. And that is that all this banging on about “zero-sum game”, “winners and losers” and fighting over an equitable share of the GST is predicated on the complete falsehood that tax payments fund government spending. They simply don’t – dollars are not a resource that gets recycled. Every dollar of federal government spending is the birth of a brand new dollar that exists because the government spent it into existence, and every dollar returned to the government through taxation is the death of that dollar. A dollar not currently in the economy does not exist, for all intents and purposes. The federal government cannot run out of dollars, any more than Coles can run out of Fly-Buys, or Qantas can run out of Frequent Flyer points. Now of course, if your economy is overpopulated with dollars, and you have more of them currently “living” (in circulation) than things to buy with them, you get inflation. And that – inflation – is the real limit on government spending.

Money is being issued constantly by the Federal Government. Every pension day, several million bank accounts have their balances increased with a few keystrokes. With every tax return, PAYG paypacket and BAS statement, bank balances get reduced again. (To be clear: this is nothing to do with note-printing. The RBA’s role as the physical printer of currency is not what I’m talking about. There is vastly more money in the economy than there are notes and coins. The decision to physically manifest dollars as paper money is purely a function of demand from banks, when their customers want to convert money as recorded in a bank account to its physical equivalent, for personal commerce.)

It’s crucial to understand that the issuing of money is not inherently inflationary. To assume that you must assume that the size of the economy is fixed, or its productive capacity is maxed out. And clearly neither of those things are true today. As I said previously, inflation occurs when the dollars available outstrip the things you can buy with them. Too much money chasing too few goods. There is no other sane definition.

There is no reason whatsoever that GST should be a pie the states fight over. To switch metaphors, Federal Government spending is actually more like a magic pudding – you can eat too much, but you cannot run out.

And this is what makes me so angry about this hypothecation of “GST revenue” as income of the individual states. When you get down to it, what is the role of government? Is it not to ensure the security, health, education and welfare of its citizens? So the idea that we must fund our education and health – the nation’s investment in its own future – from the vagaries of the consumer spending cycle has got to be one of the most idiotic economic own-goals ever kicked. Even by Costello’s standards as a thorough economic charlatan, this is epic stupidity.

Ahead of the Curve

I came across this article the other day. It’s a fascinating glimpse of the future from the past. The Executive Computer; ‘Mother of All Markets’ or a ‘Pipe Dream Driven by Greed’?

It was written a shade over 25 years ago, and begins:

Sometime around the middle of this decade no one is sure exactly when — executives on the go will begin carrying pocket-sized digital communicating devices. And although nobody is exactly sure what features these personal information gizmos will have, what they will cost, what they will look like or what they will be called, hundreds of computer industry officials and investors at the Mobile ’92 conference here last week agreed that the devices could become the foundation of the next great fortunes to be made in the personal computer business.

The business uses the participants describe – using your phone to order pizza, to “wirelessly fax”, to “plug in the latest disk-based novel” and so on are so adorably quaint.

But what I find fascinating about this article is the gulf between opinions. I’m reminded of the (possibly apocryphal) story about Thomas Watson, the president of IBM who said in 1943: “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers”. Look at the comment by Andrew Grove, chairman of Intel Corporation. He says the idea of a wireless personal communicator in every pocket is “a pipe dream driven by greed.”

It certainly contrasts with John Sculley, then CEO of Apple – a company who at the time was routinely described as “beleaguered”. He said these personal communicators could be “the mother of all markets.”

Now Sculley’s tenure at Apple was nothing if not controversial. He was, after all, the man who sacked Steve Jobs from the company he’d founded. And the company survived – just! – some pretty difficult times in the early 90s.

Today of course, the iPhone is ten years old, and along the way has completely revolutionised the smartphone market. Blackberry and Windows Mobile are nothing more than memories of another time, skid marks on the technological highway. (Remember the boss of Blackberry saying “these PC guys are not going to just walk in here and figure this out”? Good times.) Apple has grown to become the most successful company on the planet. So from the perspective of 2017, Sculley’s words are extraordinarily prophetic.

Peter Lewis’ article is a crazy echo from the past. Do go read it.