Showing posts with label Fragile Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fragile Economy. Show all posts

14 June 2010

The M-shaped recovery

You’ve heard of the W-shaped recession.

Now think about an M-shaped recovery in the middle. Rather than two dips and then a rise, this would be a rise, followed by a dip, then another rise followed by another big dip.

Regardless of what letter the graph looks like, the latest news suggests the global economy is not ready to go surging back to the world some pundits and speculators would have you believe.

Retail sales in the United States dropped in May, down 1.2 percent from April.  if consumer spending will drive the recovery, then that isn’t good news. Automobile sales and building supply sales were down as well.

Oh yes, and gasoline sales in the U.S. dropped as well.

In some other places, this all might be just another bit of news to skip over on the way to football scores.  But when you live in a province that is increasingly  dependent on exports to the United States, including oil exports, then this isn’t welcome news.

Nor is it welcome to find out that the Chinese have developed a way of producing  a low-cost version of nickel instead of the highly refined version currently in wide use to make stainless steel.  The Chinese output, called nickel pig iron,  is profitable at current world prices for nickel of US$8.50 a pound, according to the Globe and Mail. Compare to the 2007 price of US$24 a pound.

“It does put a cap on world nickel prices. If not in practical terms, at least in psychological terms,” concedes David Constable, vice-president of investor relations at Quadra FNX Mining Ltd., a Canadian company that began as a Sudbury nickel producer but has diversified its production to focus primarily on copper.

BHP Billiton Ltd., the world’s largest mining firm, has already turned bearish on nickel and sold some of its mines. The emergence of NPI was a key factor in the decision, analysts say. They expect the Chinese product’s impact to only get larger with time, as more producers enter the fray.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, Vale Inco workers are still striking against the company.  Production is still going on using replacement workers.  The provincial government recently encouraged both sides to settle the dispute, and with good reason. Government revenue from mining royalties is expected to drop yet again and having the Vale Inco mine at Voisey’s Bay anywhere but at peak production doesn’t help deal with a projected billion dollar cash shortfall. Every nickel counts.

A new low-cost way of producing nickel for steel-making also doesn’t improve the financial picture for the Vale Inco smelter project at Long Harbour.  That project remains the largest capital works project in the province. The provincial government is counting on Vale Inco to help boost the economy in the province both during the construction phase of the Long Harbour project and then with subsequent production of refined nickel.

-srbp-

24 May 2010

That’s gotta hurt, too: oil prices edition

The provincial government’s 2010 budget – due to pass the House of Assembly by next Monday – is based, in part, on crude oil average about US$83 a barrel for the entire year.

Just to make sure everyone is keeping a sharp eye on the unsustainable Tory financial ball, the budget forecasts a cash deficit of about $1.0 billion. That would eat up just about all the surplus cash on hand.  As a result, the net debt, which was hidden from prying eyes by all the surplus cash would spring back into full view in all its $10 to $12 billion splendour.

And if the following year’s budget needed some propping up, the provincial government would be back in the markets looking for some bank will to see the public debt balloon even larger.

But oil is trading this past week down in the neighbourhood of US$70 an the dollar is still pretty close to par.  Production is slightly below last year’s so there doesn’t seem to be much hope extra production would generate extra cash.

Oil is now the major source of provincial government income by quite a margin.  It’s about twice the amount the government gets from federal transfers which  - when piled together is the next biggest source of income at about $1.2 billion.  Oil royalties, forecast at $2.1 billion is about two and a half what personal income tax, the next largest provincial government’s own revenue source, brings in.

There are a couple of things to take away from all this.

First of all, when Danny Williams talks about putting the province’s finances in order such that there is less dependence on Ottawa, he’s pretty much jerking everyone in the province around. 

Nothing – and let’s say that again for good measure – n-o-t-h-i-n-g, not a single, solitary, flipping thing Danny Williams and his cabinet have done in provincial government spending since 2003 has put the provincial government on a secure financial footing.  To the contrary, they have put the provincial government in an incredibly precarious financial position even compared to when they took office.

The facts on this speak eloquently for themselves in both the fragility of the economy and unsustainable level of public spending. When he announced in early March that balanced budgets were no longer a target for his administration he pretty much confirmed that none of his claims about sound fiscal management were close to being accurate.

Second of all, bear in mind if oil stays at current prices, the cash deficit is more likely than not going to be about $1.0 billion and we are yet again staring at the prospect of one of the largest if not the largest cash deficits in provincial history.

Put all the faith you want in people who forecast triple digit oil prices as the way of the future.   Oil is not going to be the saviour of this province if its government keeps spending the way it has been spending.

It’s that simple.

So as all things out there go sour for the current administration, as it faces the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars in costs from the Abitibi expropriation fiasco, as investment interest in the province dries up, the parlous dependence of the provincial budget on oil prices just adds to the pressure.

Imagine what things will be like a year and a bit from now when voters troop to the polls.

-srbp-

15 May 2010

The recovery is here all right…

Someone just forgot to tell the friggin’ Europeans.

Crude is hovering at about US$71 a barrel, down the better part of twenty bucks in the matter of a few weeks.

Meanwhile at the provincial finance ministry they’d likely be flinging themselves out the window if their offices weren’t on the bloody first floor.  Billion dollar deficit forecast based on oil averaging about $15 above where it is now and the odds are looking very good that we just had the high point for the whole year.

That would be so friggin’ cool if it wasn’t going to hurt us all.

Hurt us all very, very badly.

-srbp-

23 April 2010

Fragile Economy: now three steps back …and loving it

Not only did the provincial government explicitly refuse to participate in talks that would diversify the provincial economic trade base, its members are proud of it:

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what this government is very, very proud of is we are the only jurisdiction of thirteen jurisdictions in all of Canada who has not gone along with the European Free Trade Agreement which Canada is trying to enter into. We are the only ones who have stood our ground and said we are not prepared to agree unless there are certain conditions. The seal industry, of course, is obviously one; the shrimp tariff is another one. …

But if that wasn’t bad enough, the Premier justified the position by claiming that it had worked in one important respect:

We have been very successful in having the shrimp tariff reduced and, in fact, removed over time. It has made a huge difference to the shrimp industry. [Emphasis added]

The first problem is that “we” – the Premier and his ministers – didn’t have very much to do with lowering the shrimp tariff in the first place.

And the second problem is that “we” did not accomplish this by boycotting important trade talks.

Sure the Premier and his fisheries minister took a much publicised junket to Europe, but there isn’t much sign they did much else except try to take credit for lowering the shrimp tariff back in 2007 before the trade talks were on. Someone else did the work.

By the way, if you take a look at that last link you’ll see this line:

Fishery Products International said about half of its shrimp is exported to the United Kingdom alone.

That would be the same Fishery Products International that had a European trade division “we” helped sell off in the break-up of FPI.

But anyway, not only are “we” no longer one step back, “we” are now not even a mere two steps back.

Provincial trade policy is effectively three steps backward:  headed in the wrong direction, proud of it and then justifying the gross strategic mistake by claiming credit for things the backward-assed policy didn’t do in the first place.

If the first step toward any solution is admitting there’s a problem, “we” are a long way from solving very much when it comes to provincial trade policy.

-srbp-

20 April 2010

Strategic Social Plan (1995) - Forward


Cover_0001 This Strategic Social Plan Consultation Paper initiates the final phase of an intensive Provincial planning process which began more than six years ago. When this Government took office in 1989, we made a commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to review all economic and social programs and mandates and to develop strategic plans to carry the Province through the turbulent changes of the 1990s into a stronger future in the 21st century.

In the fall of 1990, Government began the first phase of this planning process through a review of economy's strengths and weaknesses, examination of the activities and policies of economic departments and agencies, and the subsequent development of a public consultation paper to provide an opportunity for the people of the Province to have direct input into the vision, guiding principles, and actions that eventually became the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP).

When the SEP was released in June 1992, however, we stressed that it was only half of the planning cess. Economic issues cannot be examined or addressed in isolation from social issues and realities, and it was imperative to move on to the second phase of our strategic planning: the development of a Strategic Social Plan. A Social Planning Group (SPG) of senior officials was established, and on March 4, 1993, the Throne Speech in the House of Assembly reaffirmed Government's commitment to the development of a Strategic Social Plan as the essential and equal partner to the SEP.

During the past three years, the SPG faced many challenges in their task of researching global trends reviewing programs and policies. Unlike economic planning activity, strategic social planning models were virtually unknown, and the Group were for the most part breaking new ground. In addition, they were caught in a maelstrom of social change and reform at both the Provincial and Federal levels, and were obliged to constantly revise data and projections to keep pace with national social reforms and in funding.

Nevertheless, the work of the SPG progressed to the point where relatively stable data could be provided to Cabinet and a consultation paper could be developed. This document is not a final Strategic Social Plan but it is a clear statement of the direction in which Government intends to proceed in terms of providing essential services for the social well-being of our citizens in as effective and efficient as possible. We now invite comment and suggestions from the people of Newfoundland and through the extensive public consultation process which will precede the development of the Strategic Social Plan.

I encourage all citizens, and especially organizations concerned with various social issues, to examine this paper thoroughly and to give serious consideration to the social challenges that are outlined and to the strategies and actions that are proposed. I look forward to receiving the thoughtful views of people throughout the Province as we continue the process of planning our social order for generations to come.

[original signed by]

Clyde K. Wells

-srbp-

To come:  “Introduction and Background”

  • Introduction
  • Social profile
  • Demographic Change and Challenge
  • Living in a Different World
  • Realities
  • Principles
  • Vision

Explanatory Note:  The 159 page Strategic Social Plan [SSP] consultation paper is being presented in a series of instalments.  A companion to the 1992 Strategic Economic Plan, it lays out both a clear statement of where the province was in 1995,  the challenges to be faced in the future and policies to deal with those challenges successfully.

Approved by cabinet for release in December 1995, the 1,000 copies of the consultation document were ordered destroyed by the Tobin administration in 1996.  Only a handful of copies survived.

The planned consultation never took place.  Instead, and while something subsequently emerged which was labelled a Strategic Social Plan, the new Tobin administration went down an entirely different road from the one envisaged in the 1995 consultation paper.

Some specific initiatives from the 1995 document did make it into action.  Others did not. Unfortunately, the fundamental approach – the integrated concept – that underpinned the strategy went out the window with the change of administration in January 1996. 

It never returned.

The current state of the provincial government – unsustainable levels of public spending in an increasingly fragile economy – are a direct result. 

In a province facing an uncertain future, where political leaders are devoid of ideas, let alone sustainable or new ones, the 1995 Strategic Social Plan remains relevant.

12 April 2010

The Fragile Economy: …and two steps back

In 2007, the contracts manager at Metalcraft Marine, a Kingston Ontario boat builder noticed the growing number of reports from the united States that predicted a looming downturn in the American market.

metalcraft firestorm 30 The threat was potentially devastating for a company that did 95% of its business manufacturing small patrol boats for American government agencies.

The company shifted its marketing focus to South America, the Middle East and Asia.  The work paid off:  revenues in 2010 will be 50% higher than 2007 based on new customers outside North America.

Inertia

Meanwhile, since 2007, the provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador has been working alongside the other eastern Canadian provinces to increase trade with the United States. There is now a whole trade focus on the south-eastern Untied States complete with junkets and conferences. 

Just this weekend – April 2010 -  the Premier co-hosted the latest conference for the south-eastern project.  This is the same trade venture. incidentally, that drew Paul Oram to Georgia when he was the business minister. His grasp of recent events in the province is breathtaking.  Well, breathtaking that is, if you have no idea what he is talking about.  If you do have half a clue, you’d wonder what planet he was from to have cocked everything up so badly.

Now to be fair, the whole idea for this venture seems to have been cooked up back before 2007 when it looked to some like the growth in the United States economy would know no end. By the time the bureaucrats and politicians managed to get themselves organized, the first signs of looming trouble were showing up.  And by October 2008 when Oram was in Georgia, the entire arse had fallen out of the American economy.

By then, of course, or even by 2007, the bureaucratic juggernaut couldn’t be stopped even if someone wanted to.  And now three years after the first one, a whole bunch of people get together regularly at taxpayer expense to talk about how nice it would be if the private sector companies in the respective jurisdictions did a little business with one another. 

These trade affairs never seem to do much more than talk, of course and set up permanent offices employing public servants to help co-ordinate future meetings.  That’s what happened with the Tobin-era Irish junket-fest, revived by the Williams crew or the Team Atlantic missions to anywhere that has warmth and sun in the wintertime.  But the purpose of this discussion let’s run with the assumption used by governments, namely that these trade missions and junkets actually work.

Increasing Dependence on a Single Market

Politicians who come into office without any idea of what to do usually wind up following the flow.  This American trade idea is likely no exception. 

You see, the United States has been the province’s major foreign trading partner for decades.  In 1999, two thirds of all exports from Newfoundland and Labrador  went to the States. By 2006, that proportion had climbed to 75%.  Even in 2008 – the last year for which the provincial government provides statistics – 71% of exports from Newfoundland and Labrador went into the American market.

To put it another way, take a look at the export value compared to the province’s gross domestic product (GDP):  the  total value of goods and services produced in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2008, about half the GDP went to the Untied States. The GDP in 2009 was 22 billion.  The drop was pretty much all due to the collapse of the American market.

Now that level of dependence is not as bad as Metalcraft's problem in 2007, but it certainly should have made someone within the provincial government sit up and take notice.  After all, the provincial government’s own statistics analysts produced the figures cited above.  The level of dependence on the American economy is not a state secret.

Rather than trying to increase trade with the United States, Newfoundland and Labrador would be strategically better advised to diversify its markets. But since 2003, the provincial government has been doing exactly the opposite. 

What’s more, the provincial government  - in an apparently capricious move -  specifically rejected getting involved with a major international trade initiative aimed at diversifying the markets for local goods and services. 

Sure Paul Oram took a jet to India in 2008, but the very next year, the provincial government rejected a major national effort designed to open the European union to free trade with Canada. A few million dollars worth of seal bits trumped what had managed to become, by 2008, close to a couple of billion dollars of trade into the European Union. The prospect of more trade with the Europeans opens opportunities for new business throughout the province not to mention offering the chance to resolve some long-standing trade issues in the fishery.

However, none of that seems to have had any impact on the group of politicians and bureaucrats determining the province’s economic policy.  So it is that the European opportunity was neglected, to put it mildly, while the American continues.

Markets?  We dun need no stinking markets?

Now this is not the first or only time such a situation has occurred since 2003.

The provincial government took a hand in smashing to bits the only internationally competitive fishing enterprise based in the province.  Fishery Products International continues as a brand.  The brand, along with the international marketing arm went to a Nova Scotia-based company.  Another section, a seafood marketing arm based in the United Kingdom also wound up on the block, snapped up just as quickly by someone else with far greater vision than the provincial government and the band that sliced the company to pieces.

Now it does not matter if the provincial government actively worked to destroy FPI or if it merely went along for the ride because it lacked a coherent fisheries policy of its own.  The end result is the same:  The parts of the company that could have helped to diversify markets for local seafood are gone to others.  The unprofitable and problematic bits – the processing bits – remain in the province and continue to be highly problematic  although they are now held by a smaller company with far less global clout.

The others are doing quite well for themselves.  John Risley, vilified by the Premier during the FPI debacle, personally runs a successful company that last year turned a profit of $25.8 million despite the downturn in the American market and the high Canadian dollar.  A key part of the success is the FPI stuff Risley bought with the same Premier’s agreement.

Oh to be in that room

There is no small joke in discovering that the Biloxi conference co-hosted by Danny Williams is sponsored,in part, by AbitibiBowater. Williams’ expropriation gambit of AbitibiBowater’s and other’s assets in 2008 has turned out to be a legal disaster for the provincial government and may well prove to be as big a financial mess too.

Irrespective of that, though, there is something fitting in having Williams hosting an event designed to encourage trade while it is sponsored by a company which is the poster-child for the Williams administration’s erratic, contradictory policies. 

It is one thing to sell products in another market.  Another key component of trade missions is attracting new investors.  What could more readily turn off investors than the spectacle of a provincial government seizing control of assets, revoking permits and unilaterally quashing legal action? 

Williams did not just lay waste to AbitibiBowater’s presence in the province with his December 2008 surprise.  The expropriation bill also seized assets belonging to two other companies:  the Italian multi-national ENEL and St. John’s-based Fortis.  There is still no sign of any settlement with any of the parties affected, including those like ENEL and Fortis which appear to have been collateral damage in whatever war lay at heart of the expropriation.

One step forward and two steps back

Two decades ago, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador recognised both the problems faced in the province and the opportunities posed by changes in the global economy. The Strategic Economic Plan aimed to make fundamental changes in the economy, diversify industries and markets.  The plan was a step forward.

Two decades later, the province is two steps back.  The SEP and all the knowledge that lay behind it are tossed aside. 

As the old adage goes:  fail to plan.  Plan to fail. 

The results are there for all to see:  increasingly, the provincial labour force is dominated by people whose jobs depend on tax dollars, rather than on jobs that generate tax dollars.

 

The provincial government now accounts for almost 25% of the employed labour force in the province.  This is not just the result of the near collapse of the forest sector and the steady decline of the fishery:  public sector employment like public sector spending generally continues to grow apace. Curiously enough, the Williams administration started out with a policy of reducing the public service.

Since 2003, the only development projects that have taken place were all either begun before the current administration took power or build modestly on existing work.  Nothing new has turned up despite the creation of an entire department supposedly devoted to generating new economic development.

More of the provincial economy in 2010 depends on exports to the United States than a decade ago. About 71% of all foreign exports now head to the United States.

Oil generated one third of the provincial gross domestic product in 2009;  that’s about seven billion dollars in a $22 billion economy. Total provincial government spending for 2010 is about seven billion.  As industries like forestry and the fishery have withered or faltered, the provincial government has stepped in to take its place.

The provincial economy is increasingly driven by public sector spending which, itself cannot be sustained at current levels.

There are ways to correct the course the provincial government has currently set.

That is where this series will turn next.

-srbp-

06 April 2010

The Fragile Economy: reductio ad argentum

Political parties that come into power without direction tend to fall back on a couple of crutches to help them get through.

One is inertia.  They just keep going with what happened before.  Sometimes they just take ideas pushed up by the bureaucracy but that is really just another form of carrying on with the set of assumptions everyone knows.

The collapse of health regions and education districts into just a handful is just such an idea.  Faced with an apparent financial problem – which the new Williams administration should have known all about before they got to office, by the way – the novice Premier took a couple of suggestions pushed forward by bureaucrats as a way of saving cash.

Poof:  four health regions and five education districts. The changes didn’t actually deal with the problem nor does it appear they were thought through. Yet they were quite accepted quite readily as the election commitment of growing our way out of economic tough times  - “Jobs, jobs, jobs” - was replaced by the staples of cuts, freezes and re-organization.

That’s not really all that surprising.  After all, this was an administration that had not even been able to figure out what its departments were going to be called.  That decision wouldn’t arrive for another month.

The noobs elected in October 2003 took five months to get enough material together to present to the House of Assembly.  But even then, the overwhelming majority of the bills were modest amendments to existing laws that had been in train before the election. 

Those that weren’t already planned by the old administration didn’t produce dramatic changes of direction for government. Amendments to the Elections Act, for example, mandated that a by-election had to be called within 60 days when a vacancy occurred.  The old version dated from the early 1990s and set the maximum at 90 days.

For a government that supposedly had a plan and was keen to get to work on its new agenda, there wasn’t much sign of that new agenda from the first session of the legislature.

Aside from a toothless lobbyist registry, the Transparency and Accountability Act was the only major new piece of government business. Duly passed after a cursory debate the government then didn’t bother to put the law into force until two years later.  Even then, the bill only took effect two afters later still, that is, four years after it was passed.

Another new bill, the Court Security Act, is still not in force and likely won’t be implemented.

It’s only when one goes back and looks at that first session in hindsight that one can see exactly how little new material the brand new government brought to its first legislative session.

Directionless governments also have difficulty making decisions.  Most governments find decisions difficult to make because they issues involved are enormous and the opportunity to make a tragic mistake is great. Contrary to what people may think politicians are sincere people trying to do what they think is best. But in a directionless administration, all those sincere people have to struggle to agree on what “best” actually means.

Now by directionless, we mean nothing more than a group of people who have not learned how to work together effectively as a team.  Lack of direction may also arise where political power generally or on a given issue is so diffuse that no one individual or group of individuals can get enough support among colleagues to move in a particular direction.

Directionless governments tend to decide in favour of the lowest common denominator.  On some issues the LCD is no decision.  But, more often than not, agreement is easiest to reach if it involves spending money.

Take a look at the current administration and you can quickly see the prominent role money plays.  In fact, money is the only real measure of anything.  news releases typically refer to how much money will be spent and how much has been spent.  When asked about how important a subject like the fishery is, a typical Williams administration reply will focus on how much money has been spent on fisheries-related issues.

A by-election is fought based on how much money the premier and his party delivered to the district.  Puzzled at a by-election loss, the Premier will note how much money the district received and then roll his eyes up dismissively at the rejection.

The final Hibernia South agreements were not good enough in themselves. Rather, the estimated valued of the deal had to be inflated by an entirely artificial means.

Everything - not just principle - converts to cash. Indeed, so pervasive is the reference to money that you likely took it for granted.  But from this point onward, you will likely have a hard time looking at any news story from the provincial government and not seeing the focus on, the near obsession with cash.

There are other examples of how the current administration lacks focus and direction.  Equalization, the delays and cost over-runs throughout government, the health care cuts that sparked last fall’s crisis,  the break-up of Fishery Products International:  all are signs of an administration which lacks a coherent view of the problems it faces and a cohesive organization that can tackle them successfully.

Knowing how the current administration has a problem finding its way is one thing.  The consequences for the province and its people are something else.

-srbp-

The Fragile Economy series:

31 March 2010

The Fragile Economy: staying the course

“Obviously, I don't like to run deficits, but if I've got to fight a recession ... if we've got to get the economy booming again, then I'm not afraid to spend money and we're not afraid to lower taxes to stimulate the economy - that's good public policy.”

Finance minister Tom Marshall often speaks about one thing and does another.  He’s famous for trotting out a debt clock during one budget consultation farce only to deliver a budget that did nothing to reduce debt.

This year Marshall has been trying to pass off deficit spending as if it was something new for this administration.  It isn’t. They’ve run cash deficits in all but two years since 2004.  If their current forecast holds, they will be adding a considerable amount of debt for the foreseeable future.

Adding debt is just staying the course for the Williams administration.

Premier Danny Williams himself has dismissed balanced budgets as meaningless. Marshall explicitly rejected any action like balanced budget legislation or having a debt reduction policy.

Marshall’s predecessor as finance minister - Loyola Sullivan  - talked about balancing the books on a cash basis – he only did it once – and possibly not balancing the accrual books for a number of years.  That was back in the early days of the administration when it looked like they were actually going to deal with some of the provincial government’s financial woes. But even for all that notice debt got within the first couple of years after Williams and the Tories took office,  they were willing to rack up additional public debt.

Since we are discussing debt, let’s dispose of one of the finance minister’s more laughable claims from budget day:

“But we have cash to pay for that deficit. We will not increase our borrowing. Our debt will go up, but we don't have to borrow for that.”

On the face of it people may well wonder how you can increase public debt while not borrowing money.

The answer is pretty simple and it goes to the heart of the public debt charade Marshall and his colleagues have been foisting for the past few years.

Marshall covered the half billion shortfall in 2009 from temporary investments – extra cash – the provincial government had on hand.  He didn’t have to go to the banks and negotiate a loan but he sure as heck borrowed the money:  he borrowed it from taxpayers.

As for the debt, what he is referring to is net debt.  Now for those who may not know, net debt is a calculation of what is owed compared to assets – cash, property and so on – that could theoretically be sold off to pay down the money that is owed.

Those temporary investments that the provincial government racked up over the past couple of years helped to make it look like the public debt had been paid down. That’s because they are exactly the sort of assets that would have bee used to figure out the net debt:  liabilities less assets.

So when Tom took the cash and spent it, the net debt could only go back up.  The net debt will go up again next year and the year after and any other year Tom winds up having to cover off over-spending.

Just remember, though, that the total liabilities haven’t changed much in the past few years. You can see that from a post last December on net debt and liabilities and in another post on net borrowings.

This is not a subject the Fan Clubbers like to talk about but it is real. it also just happens to be one of the major financial problems facing the province that isn’t being addressed by the current administration.

Just to give you a sense of how much the past two budgets have followed what we could call the Williams administration debt addition policy, take a look at just the current account spending since 2003.  That’s the money that pays the heat and light and delivers the services and salaries every day of every year. 

And just to really keep it in perspective think of it this way.  You can have a great net debt because you have a nice house, an expensive car and some jewels that could possibly be sold off if the bank called all your loans. 

But since the house and the jewels don’t generate any cash each year they don’t help you pay the bills today.  If you can’t afford food without whipping out the credit card you could be in a situation of being cash poor. Lots of nouveau riche business types are leveraged to the max.  They drive flashy cars but they don’t really have a copper to their name. So without considering the cash deficit, the net debt could be a very misleading figure.

Anyway, take a gander at this table.  It shows the percentage increase in current account spending every year from 2003 to the current budget.

Fiscal Year

Percent increase from previous year

2004

Zero

2005

5.3

2006

4.6

2007

8

2008

7.8

2009

10

2010 (forecast)

7

That’s right.

Except for that first year, there’s never been a time when current account spending didn’t go up by at least twice the national rate of inflation.  In some years spending shot up three and four times the rate of inflation.

This sort of spending is unsustainable.

This sort of financial state – all that spending coupled with all that untended debt – is unsustainable.

There are other consequences to the Williams administration economic policy, consequences that will become more obvious as this new series – The Fragile Economy – rolls out in the days ahead.

-srbp-