It’s often said that predictions are a fool’s game. But even so, there are at least some things in life that carry an ineffable sense of the inevitable.
Witness, for one, the promise of another rate rise today in an economy beset by sticky inflation. It’s inevitable, not because there’s anything to indicate higher interest rates are necessarily an appropriate panacea to today’s inflation – given its roots mainly owe to supply-side disruptions it can’t plausibly control, such as the pandemic and Ukraine war.
But inevitable because the necessity of higher interest rates underpins the confused and misleading orthodoxy the Reserve Bank has been spinning Australians to justify its war on inflation.
In this connection, among the things the Reserve Bank will almost certainly not care to reflect upon today, as it treats everyone to yet another lecture on the supposed evils of higher wages, is its brief but illuminating autopsy on the link between decades of depressed wage growth and concentrated market power.
Published last week, the report gives expression to an idea long confined to the margins of policy debate in Australia due to the undisguised derision it inspires among classic conservative ideologues and economists alike. And that is the notion that the country’s falling real wages can be traced to the creeping power of firms that look unnervingly like the monopolies and oligopolies of a bygone era.
Most people, of course, have a passing sense of the extent to which corporate behemoths have come to dominate Australia’s commercial landscape — spanning, as they do, our telecommunications, energy, insurance, banking, groceries, airlines and fuel markets plus more. Indeed, the chances of encountering a market wholly untouched by such concentration nowadays is, on any view, crushingly remote.
Notwithstanding that, fewer people are conceivably aware of the link between the declining real wages of most Australians and the impact of unchecked market power.
Where there are fewer corporations to compete for and retain employees, so too is there a corresponding lack of incentive to offer decent wages. This much is borne out by ABS national accounts data, which shows the share of national income comprised by company profits since the 1970s has been on the rise, while earnings — by contrast — have been falling. In fact, wages account for their lowest share of national income on record.
But none of this is truly news. What is news is that it’s now a line of thinking stamped with the imprimatur of official Reserve Bank research.
The reason this is striking is that this is the very same institution that has long used the guise of orthodox neoliberal thinking to claim ignorance of the conditions giving rise to falling real wages. And it’s also the same institution that has used the altogether dubious spectre of real wage growth to justify pushing thousands of low- and middle-income earners to the brink in recent months by raising interest rates.
Notably, the central bank’s paper itself ranks the impact of corporate consolidation above the fading power of the union movement as the overriding cause of sluggish and non-existent wage growth. And, in so doing it puts paid to that classic market rejoinder, long cherished by defenders of neoliberal thinking, that monopoly power is never really a problem because it is, so they claim, liminal. The idea there is that higher profits will, in theory, attract new competitors, thereby driving prices down and wages up, or so the thinking goes.
But as the Reserve Bank’s paper points out, most sectors of the economy have witnessed both a decline in the share of businesses that are new firms and a marked rise in mergers and acquisitions. Taken together, this suggests that neoliberal thinking has grossly underestimated both the appetite and ability of incumbent companies to devour nascent competitors.
In one sense none of this is wholly surprising. After all, wealth and power, it’s so often said, are almost synonymous — one begets the other. And if there ever was one indisputable sign of uncontrolled monopoly or oligopoly power, it’s surely record corporate profits. From the 1980s through to the late 1990s, the average prices charged by large listed firms in Australia hovered close to the marginal cost of production. But as of 2016, average prices were about 60% above that benchmark.
Indeed, many firms — as several economists have pointed out — have wielded precisely this same market power in recent months to bank exorbitant profits, using high inflation as a cover, in a move that itself has been blamed for fuelling the country’s inflationary pain.
The ensuing, and depressing, upshot of all this is an economy wholly weighed down by the inevitable implications of concentrated and uncompetitive markets, with the cycle of depressed wages, rising consumer prices and soaring inequality chief among them.
Still, the chances that any of this will find reflection in the thoughts of the Reserve Bank board and, more particularly, its governor Philip Lowe today are remote.
For one, it would require Lowe to run contrary to the thinking of at least two other board members who have direct connections with the right-wing, neoliberal Centre of Independent Studies. For another, it would wholly undercut the rationale used by the central bank for continually raising the cash rate.
But perhaps more than anything it would require Lowe to concede the central bank’s blind faith in the absolute ability of markets to self-regulate and deliver outcomes commensurate with the expectations of workers and consumers alike is one completely untethered from the realities of market power.
And so while few things can be stated with searing certainty, there can be little doubt the Reserve Bank will continue to lose credibility in the eyes of most Australians as the months roll on.
Agree with all that. The big lie behind almost all attempted justifications for neo-liberal economics is the pretence that there is any free market. Without real and effective competition between several comparable companies in each market sector there is no free market and no invisible hand working to spread the benefits. It is far more like colonial exploitation.
It’s today’s variation of “The floggings will continue until morale improves.”
We are constantly told or reminded of the benefits of a ‘free market’ and ‘choice’, but this masks how many sectors are top end cartels or oligopolies who can demand being catered to by (cowed) government; unsurprisingly one of the worst sectors, is the media.
It’s often those who bang on with the greatest enthusiasm about free markets who are the most determined to avoid their businesses ever being exposed to true competition. No surprise at all, of course, when Adam Smith himself demonstrated that the result of a fully functioning free market must be that soon enough competition drives profit down to zero; any company making a profit will be out-competed by one willing to forego that profit. As a corrollary of this, the huge profits being made by various businesses right now in Australia and the massive bonuses given to those at the top is irrefutable proof we do not have even the semblance of competitive free markets.
Yes forget about a socialist revolution, imagine a government committed to free markets and competition, breaking up oligopolies and returning natural monopolies to state control. But that would be to confuse the ideological veneer of “market economics” with the material reality. Capitalism is about owning property and using all forms of power it generates, political, economic and cultural, to keep accumulating more property. All the rest is distraction.
The quickest way to get money out of the economy is tax those who get the most and use it to stimulate things when they go bad. Interest rates kill investment in productive activity on the supply side. You cannot control inflation with only one method and it is scandalous to drop the burden on those who contribute least to the problem as Lowe admits he is doing.
It is indeed scandalous to further pressure the poorest in our society, but it is also the easiest way forward for the Reserve Bank. Wealth will always fight back. They will do it with the media (who they basically own), they will do it with the Coalition, they will do it by threatening to move assets offshore, and they do it with the informal connections that Wealth always has to hand; the school tie, the old boys’ clubs. No, it is the job of peasants to support their Betters and to jump in front of bullets and recessions; the Reserve Bank knows this and acts accordingly.
Australia is the land of the duopoly with most of the inflation due to what are administered prices The RBA is a sheltered workshop for economic theology the place where every submission begins with- Assuming perfect competition It’s a fantasy world that has no resemblance to what’s actually happening
Yes our market size is far too small to allow genuine competition. 2 players in a market (e.g. Coles-Woolies, Qantas – Virgin) are a duopoly who (maybe not too obviously) collude to manage prices at will.
Our market may be small but our GDP and per capita income is high. Surely we can manage better than 2 airlines. And why does 1 have to a behemoth like QANTAS? There are many ways for government to get involved in transport and aviation planning. How about a VFT/HSR from Melbourne to Brisbane via Sydney? Sydney to Melbourne is the 4th busiest air route in the world. Only QANTAS has the capability and that is because it was previously owned by the government who built it and it’s reputation, up. Our market is not too small as we have the GDP of many countries, some of which are larger than us. We only have bad governments who have dropped the ball and a media which lies to us.
we need public owned air , mail , insurance, water , minerals , parking , fossil fuels for a start – make our own electric vehicles and reinstill ggelong carvmaudacturing and do our medicines, electronics and digital and solar plants
Excellent article. No wonder productivity growth is so sluggish, when big corporations can use their oligopolistic market power, leverage with friendly governments, and wage suppression to keep profits fat without having to compete too hard, innovate, or think too much. Which leaves us with an economy that is getting less complex and sophisticated while the extractive industries rule. And while the focus has mainly been on Lowe, Maeve rightly points to the fact that the bank is stacked with representatives of the rent-seeking corporates and their hired propagandists from right-wing think-tanks. Time the RBA had a good clean-out. (I nominate Alison Pennington for a seat on the next board!)
Not to mention that corporations always get their way on mass immigration; which is their tool of trade to boost profits while surpressing wages. It’s the weapon that no-one will discuss.
The central bank should be dismantled and restructured. Another rate rise today. It’s like an endless loop at the moment. Inflation is high due to supply issues. —> We must raise interest rates to reduce demand —> It doesn’t work because inflation is not demand driven —> Repeat ad finitum.
Surely the only cure for such incompetence is to remove the lot and start again.