Much of politics and public debate of the pandemic response has centred on communication and its effectiveness. That’s understandable, given the public need for accurate information at a time of life-and-death crisis.
Mixed messages from politicians and health experts in particular have occupied a lot of media bandwidth, mainly in relation to schools. But there’s also been the inevitable problem of inconsistencies created by arbitrary rules around social distancing, such as the inexplicable exemption of hair dressers from the lockdown.
Over the last week, as governments’ success in curbing infection rates has sparked discussion of an end to lockdown, the communication task has shifted from asking Australians to accept a fundamental change in social and economic life, to persisting with what has become the status quo.
“Stay the course” is now the message from politicians, usually delivered with a dollop of patronising praise for how good the community has been, like a dog that has successfully refrained from devouring the treat balanced on its nose.
Nor have there been any more blockbuster stimulus packages to catch the public’s attention and reinforce the dramatic nature of events — to the extent that that was ever needed.
The communication task thus becomes even harder: emphasising no change, not radical change.
The paucity of effective political communication has been a persistent theme to the point of cliché, of political coverage for more than a decade — summed up by a lament that things had fallen very far from the golden years of Keating, and the bronze years of Howard and Costello.
Even those who knew what was needed for better communication, like Malcolm Turnbull, were unable to deliver it.
But the nostalgia for the strong communicators of yesteryear rarely factors in a far more fragmented media environment.
To use a metaphor regularly and inaptly deployed about the crisis, if this is a war (major conflict — think more “London Can Take It” than “Hell No We Won’t Go”), it’s one that has been fought in a media environment unlike any other.
The era in which major conflicts were fought with governments and media gatekeepers regulating the flow of information and analysis is long gone.
Combatting impactful disinformation spreading on social media is a key challenge. Every statement from politicians and health experts is subjected to relentless (and usually deeply critical) analysis on social media.
The mainstream media, now fighting for its very life as increasingly rare advertising revenue dries up altogether, shrinks and itself becomes more shrill in order to preserve its remaining readership.
More substantial communications challenges lie ahead, especially for Morrison.
We’re really only at the end of the beginning now, even if lockdown restrictions could be eased in May.
The economic impacts of the lockdown, and persisting restrictions like border closures — think radically fewer temporary migrant workers and foreign students, and no tourists — will be felt for a long time to come, and it’s unlikely the hospitality industry will be reopening before spring.
The construction sector, which was already struggling before the crisis, will also be hit hard and take time to recover as financing is approved and DAs are signed off by councils.
Morrison and Josh Frydenberg will have to communicate effectively about how — and why — support measures will be switched off as the virus disappears behind us — with any luck sooner rather than later, reducing the fiscal impact.
Beyond that lies the recovery phase, which may take us into 2022. There’ll be no more “all in this together” stuff by then — it will be every vested interest for itself as everyone pushes to avoid bearing the burden of paying for the cost of the survival packages.
Voters will understand that there is a bill to be paid; the challenge will be demonstrating that the burden is being shared and those with greater capacity to pay are doing so — something those with the capacity to pay will pay a great deal to avoid.
And every decision will be met with howls of fury on social media. Witness how even Morrison’s leadership of a relatively successful campaign to eradicate the threat of COVID-19, and prop up the economy as best the government can, has been met with vilification and abuse from Twitter progressives.
This end stage will be the big threat for Morrison. The story of Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership was a successful handling of a major crisis followed by a complete fumbling of the subsequent recovery, not helped by some legacy problems from an otherwise eminently successful stimulus program.
Rudd was brilliant in a crisis, but the moment politics reverted to business as usual, he began struggling and his flaws emerged.
Can Morrison go one better than that and win the peace as well as the war?
The only fair way of paying off the public debt incurred as a result of measures against the COVID-19 pandemic is a progressive wealth tax. If the average tax was 1%, then it would generate around $126 billion a year (assuming there are 14 million households with an average wealth of $900,000 per household), which would quickly pay off the debt.
Those with, would. Those without, won’t. Have to pay.
Taxes do not pay for anything. It is used to drain liquidity in the non-governmental sector to create room for govt spending without being inflationary. So no one needs to pay for govt spending. But a fairer taxation system would reduce inequality.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=44613
Simon Cobbold, finally someone with a brain that understands how a national economy works in a sovereign nation since the gold standard was abolished, a sovereign government that controls its own currency can print money to increase that currency in circulation or withdraw it as circumstances require or emergencies arise or to buy or build defence capabilities or major infrastructure projects, the last depression was caused by the gold standard being then in place as governments could only have in circulation the equivalent amount of currency as that held in their gold reserves which meant when spending reached that amount they were then forced to borrow, and that had to be paid back, that no longer is the case. and economic journalist should brush up on modern economics, a federal economy is not a household budget where if the expenditure is more than the income they need to borrow to cover the shortfall and their expenditure is controlled by their ability to service any loan, if that household could print their own money they would never need to borrow.
So the whole govt debt thing is just a hoax? If so why strive to attain a surplus, is it just an arbitrary construct? Why aren’t we all rich? Tell me more…
We, collectively, are all rich – it’s just that we, the 90%, are being collectively & individually robbed blind by the 1%.
Aided & abetted by the 9% enjoying the crumbs from their masters’ tables.
You are quite right.
As I have said before the debt is fictitious. We have not borrowed from anyone so there is no lender. If there is no lender then their is no debt.
The other fiction is that we are borrowing from the future so that the next generational will have to pay. This is bullshit. If we don’t maintain cash flow to those without work, the people who are the next generation’s parents, then how does that provide a future for these kids if they starve to death?
The only people who believe there is a debt are people who don’t realize that economics is not about cash, it’s about production, consumption and survival. It’s only those people who have shit-loads of money who want it to be seen as debt so they can continue to persecute the wage slaves and homeless of our society.
People continually compare the Sars Cov2 pandemic and it’s economic effects with the GFC. The two are completely different. The GFC was precipitated by a crime, a giant Ponzy scheme run by Wall St Banks to enrich their CEO’s and shareholders. It wasn’t about the real economy with the proviso that resources from the “real economy” in the form of builders and tradesmen were overpaid to produce unneeded housing. The causes of the GFC can only be properly understood as a crime. Not a result of an economic event. Exactly the same sort of crime as if someone on the internet raided your bank account so you couldn’t pay your mortgage.
The Sars thing is a real economic phenomenon. It is a short term, forced shut down of particular industries through a natural event. It takes physical units of the economy out of production. It has a palpable effect on the real economy where things are made and sold.
People shouldn’t have to pay the price for the Sars bailout, because it is not a bailout, and in any event they are paying the price; through reduction in earnings, and in the case of business loss of profits.
And what the result of the Sars 2 pandemic? Trump has withdrawn the pitiful US grants to the WHO. The WHO has with very limited resources, got rid of polio, smallpox. Yes, the US provided around 16% of WHO funding, but this amounted to $450 million per annum. Compare that with US military spending of at least $693 billion in 2019. The crazy thing about this is that a lot of the money granted to the WHO tends to end up financing research in the centers of medical excellence that the US has. Trump is punishing the WHO so that he can shift the blame for his own gross incompetence and negligence onto someone else. He doesn’t want to pay the price of Sars.
If you look at Morrison’s government the $100 million they wasted on the sports rorts affair could have been very handy for the WHO. And where has most of the money for support during the Sars lockdown, business of course.
Instead of talking about public debt, would you be happier if we talk about increased liquidity? The government is printing money, increasing cash in circulation, to encourage consumption of goods and services, in order to soften the economic downturn.
When the pandemic is over, and the economy has returned to normal, then there will be too much money in circulation chasing a finite amount of goods and services.
Unless the extra money printed isn’t removed from the economy, this will result in increased inflation or depreciation of the currency.
To withdraw money from the circulation, it’s necessary to increase taxation – effectively ‘paying public debt.’
You do know that no one has to pay for the Federal Government’s fiscal expansion. This is basic Modern Monetary Theory. Governments with a free floating currency spends at will. Bond issuance is post-hoc account keeping which the RBA can just buy back from itself. Which makes most of this article baseless.
When will you so called financial experts admit there is no bill to pay from this stimulus, its printed money not borrowed money where do these experts get their degrees from, the national university of fools and liars. same one Scomo got his from.
‘Printed’ money increases demand for goods and services without increasing supply of either, so it’s inflationary. It’s necessary to withdraw the excess money by taxation and ‘paying’ the public debt.
The alternative method would be to allow inflation to increase.
We are nowhere near full employment, and not likely to be for years into the future, so ‘printing money’, as it were, is hardly likely to increase the very low rate of inflation. Demand, along with wage growth, is depressed throughout the economy, which supports the tenets of MMT. Massive levels of ‘government debt’ all over the world and megatons of ‘quantitative easing’ have not caused excessive inflation since the GFC, as reflected in near-zero interest rates. Much of the economic ‘recovery’ since then has been illusory.
There has been real inflation of asset values, which for most people in our society is the price of houses (also stocks), but such price inflation – encouraged by the Australian government, at least – is not included in the CPI/inflation rate as calculated by the RBA. The massive inflation of house values has certainly been built on a burgeoning level of debt – household debt. That debt in turn is based on private banks’ creation of money literally out of thin air rather than loaning out others’ deposits. Why do we accept a massive level of asset inflation based on private money creation, but worry ourselves silly about ‘paying’ government debt formed by money creation to fund emergencies and essentials to survival of society?
There’s a certain narrative which seeks to justify austerity for wage-earning tax-payers and welfare recipients, many of whom have not been able to participate in the property mania. It’s possible, perhaps likely, that inflation of all kinds, even of house prices, will take a knock over the next few years, despite governments’ money creation.
Morrison at least will not be facing Abbott and Murdoch tag-teaming in the ring.
Well, as this article indicates in what it does not cover, the Dear Leader has clearly been quite successful in concealing his efforts to line the pockets of business with the various packages while cutting wages and conditions.
Abandonment too of the victims and the marginalised is capitalism’s automatic and inbuilt reaction to crises (now including climate change and pandemics). Contrast the incredible range of punitive covid-19 laws with the non-existence of official alternatives to staying in a dangerous or unaffordable dwelling!
morrison and his Kleptocracy spent a decade constantly smearing Rudd Labor’s stimulus package. Naturally they expect their brazen hypocrisy and colossal arrogance to pass virtually without comment by the media, as it in fact has. Being a domineering bully makes sure that no-one is critical.
Better still the massive tax giveaways passed last year are still going ahead. No slowing of the gravy train for those on six- or seven-digit incomes!
Well said. Look at Crown being looked after so well.
There was a comment in the NYTimes yesterday to the effect of:
If the Democrats win the Presidency in November, watch the Republicans overnight start to slam them for prolifigacy and the national debt.
If the Democrat wing of the Property Party beats the Republican wing of the Property Party (see Gore Vidal) watch nothing change beyond a few symbolic adjustments as the same sponsors continue to benefit and the same victims continue to suffer.