Categories
Podcast episode

Uncovering the Secrets of Valuing and Selling Businesses w/ Arthur Petropoulos, Hill View Partners – EP211

Show host Gene Tunny is joined by Arthur Petropoulos, founder and managing partner of Hill View Partners, a company specializing in mergers and acquisitions, business sales, and capital advisory services for middle market companies. They discuss how Arthur finds, values, and sells businesses, as well as the wider economic impacts of his work and the role of private equity. They also explore whether we should be concerned about modern-day Gordon Gekkos and how the business landscape has changed since the 1980s. 

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

YouTube clips

What’s covered in EP211

  • Business sales and capital raising with Hillview Partners. (1:22)
  • Business brokering process and outreach strategies. (5:18)
  • Business valuation and acquisition strategies. (8:10)
  • Buyers and sellers in mergers and acquisitions. (14:47)
  • Business sale process and foreign investment constraints. (17:34)
  • Selling a business, focusing on narrative and information sharing. (24:18)
  • Private company sales and legal risks. (28:00)
  • The role of capital markets in the economy. (38:05)
  • Private equity’s role in the economy, including pros and cons. (44:10)

Links relevant to the conversation

About this episode’s guest Arthur Petropoulos:

https://hillviewps.com/leadership/

Arthur’s YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZu4Nl6i5IseEJBqp1IPd3g

Hill View Partners social media:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/hillviewpartners/

Transcript: Uncovering the Secrets of Valuing and Selling Businesses w/ Arthur Petropoulos, Hill View Partners – EP211

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It was then looked over by a human, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, just in case the otters missed anything whilst they were munching on fish. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny  00:01

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory, evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Hello, thanks for tuning in to the show. I’m delighted to be joined this episode by Arthur Petropoulos, Founder and Managing Partner of Hill View Partners, which specialises in mergers and acquisitions, business sales and capital advisory services for middle market companies. We talk about how Arthur finds businesses to sell, how he values them and how he sells them. We also talk about the wider economic impacts of the work he does and the role of private equity. Should we be concerned about modern day Gordon Gekkos or were the 1980s different from today? Okay, let’s get into the episode. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Arthur Petropoulos.

Arthur Petropoulos from Hill View Partners, thanks for coming onto the show.

Arthur Petropoulos  01:22

Good to be here. Gene. I appreciate it. I like, contents great, listened to a bunch of it and happy to add to the archives.

Gene Tunny  01:30

Excellent Arthur, what I’m looking forward to is learning a bit more about what you do and in Hill View Partners and the broader community that you’re part of the broader industry. One of one of my favourite podcasts is David Bahnsen’s Capital Record. And David’s someone who’s always talking about the strength of American capital markets, and just what that contributes to the economy. So yeah, I’d be keen to explore that with you. To start off with, could you tell us a bit about what you do at Hill View Partners please?

Arthur Petropoulos  02:06

Sure. So fundamentally, our company helps companies do two things. We advise and assist companies in the sale of their business and we do the same for companies that are seeking to secure capital. So you can think of it investment banking business brokerage intermediary, but the simplest way to explain it is when you think of a real estate broker, or help people sell real estate, we do the same thing, but with businesses, and we’re helping people find capital for those businesses. And it’s a real area of specialisation and focus, privately held companies generating one to 10 million in pre tax profit, typically owned by families, entrepreneurs, small groups of investors. So in the broad scale of the economy, it’s kind of that line between the lower middle market and middle market, that’s our area of specialisation. And really where we focus.

Gene Tunny  02:53

Right and what sort of businesses would they be? I’m just trying to think I mean you’d have some professional services businesses, do you have bakeries or…

Arthur Petropoulos  03:02

So if you think of kind of the, and the reason why we started the business and folks in this space is I spent about 10 years in New York, doing this both on the investment banking side of helping companies as well as the private equity side of buying companies. And what we found is there’s this doughnut hole of sorts, where very large companies kind of work with the Wall Street investment banks, and then very small companies work with the local business brokers. But there’s a huge swath of stuff in between. So you might have a software company that it’s kind of it has a very specialised niche that generates a million or $2 million in profit a year. I think everybody thinks of software’s giant companies are just growth growth. There’s plenty of kind of very niche software’s dashboard, task force management, pricing tools for particular industries, whether it’s construction or satellite dish installation, it could be anything, right. And those companies are a lot of what we do a b2b and b2c services. So you could think of window cleaning companies we’ve sold or gutter cleaning or roofing companies or, you know, irrigation, those are broad Real Estate Services, then there’s just general kind of like specialty manufacturing or distribution companies. So we sold a company that sold cleanroom supplies into pharmaceutical companies. There’s another company that manufactured component parts that went into aeroplanes. And so what I will say the consistent theme for companies we represent so we really, we’re agnostic of industry, so so long as it fits the profitability criteria as well as kind of the complexion of ownership. But what you find after iterations and iterations is that companies in the size that we represent, are not competing on the cost of capital. They do not provide commodity products, and so whatever it’s b2b or b2c services products offering, where we’ll be is there will be something specialised about it, there’ll be something niche something proprietary, there’ll be something they do better than anybody whether they have just better economics, whether they have access to certain markets or customers, or whether they just have a capability or an aptitude that’s unique. There’s usually something so that’s, you know, that’s part of the fun. And part of the exercise is as we’re talking to new people, figuring out what kind of that secret element is to their, to their respective business.

Gene Tunny  05:18

Right? Can I ask you, how does it, how does it work? I mean, so say you’re in business broking. And you’re selling some of these businesses, you’re trying to get the best price for the the seller, and then you get obviously commission, I don’t need to know, you know, that’s probably proprietary and confidential, but I’m interested in, like, do they pick up the phone? Or do you go actively looking for these businesses? You’re in Rhode Island, are you driving around Providence, and you go up to New York City? I mean, how do you how do you do it?

Arthur Petropoulos  05:51

No, so I mean, look, we endeavoured to make this business a national and international business from the get go, because I think historically, it has been a hyper regional business where you have, you know, three guys sitting at the back of a bar, you know, drinking with the guy who owns a local lumberyard, right, or whatever the business may be. And I think as things have evolved, where middle market businesses have, now they’re doing much more national and international work, we find that there, it’s really about just having the dialogue with people and really understanding the objectives and facilitating the process. And so we work with companies all over the states, as well as international to a lesser degree, but Western, Eastern Europe, Southern Asia, then a small amount of Middle East, but it’s really about finding the business that meets kind of the size, ownership complexion, I think season and in the business lifecycle where they’re looking to accomplish one of these goals. But it’s a because it’s not, it’s not a hyperlocal business. Because there’s you can’t just drive up and down a main street or high street and find a lot of these things. They’re kind of, there’s more of them than you think in some places. And there’s less than you think in other places, right? It’s a it’s a quirky business, because you might not realise but there’s a large like, you know, pillow manufacturer down the street from you, or a software company that’s in just this nondescript building that does this thing. And so, our outreach, we do some direct outreach, whether it’s email, whether we’re chatting on LinkedIn, with people, we put out content that on LinkedIn, as well as YouTube, we have two videos going out every week, kind of just explaining different categories, we get a lot of inbound conversations from that. And then I think some of the best relationships and conversations you have are from other happy customers. And so every time a deal closes, and our client’s very happy, they do tell their friends and say, Hey, we know a firm that did a real good job for us and that and engenders some goodwill. So, you know, I think there’s this kind of direct outreach inbounds there’s some warm outreach from kind of relationships and referrals. And then there’s just kind of goodwill generated by I think, good results.

Gene Tunny  08:04

Good one, and in that process of the sale, like getting it ready for sale, are you, are you involved? Are you providing advice on business operations, governance, that sort of thing to try and improve the value of it at the sale?

Arthur Petropoulos  08:20

Yeah, I think there’s certain things that, that are malleable at that stage of the game. There’s other things where it’s a matter of characterization and kind of just understanding it and documenting because a lot of times the processes are there, the people are there. And it’s just a matter of kind of memorialising precisely what the different people do, how are they cross trained? What are their capabilities? What are the processes of the business relative to origination and sourcing of new business operations and the administration of the company as well as kind of the execution and fulfilment of the actual work? And so, most of these things are there. They just need to be crystallised as part of the narrative. And but look, there are time to time where as we’re having those dialogues, where there are things that, hey, you know, it would if this, we don’t want, we call kind of like single source reasons for failure, right? And so if there’s one employee that does this one very important thing, who else could do that if they couldn’t, right? Or if you’re getting certain raw goods from one particular source, what happens if you can’t get it from them? And so I do think it’s kind of parsing through each part of the business and trying to poke holes in it, that has a lot of good dialogue, because the more we can try to poke holes, the more we either get the answers as to why there’s a safeguard or, you know, it allows for the implementation and incorporation of a safeguard and mitigation means at that juncture.

Gene Tunny  09:46

And how would you know, if you’re getting a fair price, I mean, how do you know what sort of sort of price to to aim for there? Is it multiples of earnings or the how do you actually work that out? And also how do you do it across all these different industries you mentioned you’re industry agnostic. I mean, yeah, that you mean, you must have to get across a lot of new industries really quickly. How do you do that, Arthur?

Arthur Petropoulos  10:10

Sure. So by virtue of focusing, I think on the size of the profitability of the company, and by virtue of that it must be profitable. Capital tends to kind of work in different ecosystems. And what we find is that the delineation of ecosystems is much more predicated on the size of the company than necessarily the industry in terms of capital and in terms of acquirers, right. So you have, if it’s a not profitable business, but it’s growing fast, and it’s that venture capital world, or growth equity, right, that’s its own ecosystem, whereas private equity for the profitable companies that we work with, strategic acquirers in the middle market, that’s its own ecosystem. So it’s fascinating, but you’d be surprised at how many of the counterparties on the other side are looking kind of agnostic of industry as well. And more specific to size and complexion. And then kind of large private equity, and publicly traded companies have their own ecosystems as well. So we focus on our one ecosystem, which is important to do. And then but there is always kind of a specialised research that’s necessary for a particular industry, because there are quirks and idiosyncrasies with any industry as we’ve done, you know, 100 plus transactions as Hill View Partners, and I’ve done 100 plus transactions in my life before starting the company, you do learn kind of which, where to look and how to research different industries. And so it’s not so much that you need to know every industry, but you have to know what to look for in every particular industry. So as we kind of get into any particular new ones, and there’s not many that we have not been involved with, but we still take a fresh look towards it. You know, it’s a matter of finding who are the active parties, we have our own internal database, as well as some, we subscribe to external databases and Cap IQ, PitchBook Data, there’s a handful of them out there. And we do a lot of our own kind of proprietary research. I think the difference in largely what we do is, many intermediaries will just kind of gather all the information, puke it to the universe to 20,000 people and just wait for the phone ring. We are proactive, not reactive, we do a lot of research upfront. That way we’re pinpointing who to reach out to. And what that ultimately does, is A) it mitigates a lot of the kind of typical pain points. So shrinks the duration limits, distraction keeps the discretion generates better results. But also, it really fine tunes the conversation. So getting back to your question about multiples, that’s usually a good place to start, right? The fundamentals are the driver. So if we look at it, you’ll see like different stratas of size will usually have different multiple ranges. So a company that does a million dollars in EBITDA will generally trade at four to seven times EBITDA, a company that does 2 million will trade at five to seven, five to eight, maybe 3 million you probably see six to a four, 5 million, maybe you start getting towards nine, 5 million plus, can you get to 10 at 10 million, can you get to 12 times but there’s this multiples expansion. And candidly, I mean, that’s a lot of the private equity thesis, right is if you buy 10 $1 million companies for $6,000,000. Six times multiple for a million dollars of EBITDA for each acquisition, once you have 10 of those together, it’s worth 10 to 12 times EBITDA right? So that’s how you spend 60 and it’s worth 120. But our logic, our research is finding what the comps are, looking where it kind of falls in the strata. But then also, by doing research about finding where our client is the missing puzzle piece for someone’s bought a puzzle, right? So yes, well, you know, if we sold a company that made a certain type of widget, that mega widget company just doesn’t have this one thing to sell, right? We want to talk about that as a buy versus build opportunity for them. So yes, you have the fundamentals but the two other reasons why companies are bought are A) access to certain end markets, but B) proprietary capabilities. And so if it’s something special about what the company does, or if it has very unique access, then we can pivot the conversation to say, Well look, yes, you may think that there’s $1 million EBITDA company’s worth $6 million. However, it would cost you $15 million to start this company from scratch, to build, to take time the resources to allocate to try to build this. So maybe you can buy it for split the difference, right? And so what we say is we wanted to the fundamentals are the starting point. And then the access to capabilities and pivoting the dialogue to buy versus build. Those are the enhancing factors that hopefully we can get even better but to answer your question more simply a lot of research and a lot of conversations. That’s how we know we’re getting the best results.

Gene Tunny  14:46

Yeah, good one. Okay. And can I just clarify some things so you’re on the the sell side, you’re a business broker or an investment bank, or you’re similar, are you similar to an investment bank?

Arthur Petropoulos  15:00

Yeah, I mean, the key differentiator is investment banks deal with security. So they’re dealing with publicly traded companies for the most part, and we deal almost entirely with privately held companies. So that’s why we’re an M & A advisory firm would be the phrasing because we don’t deal with securities.

Gene Tunny  15:15

Yep. Gotcha. Okay. And private equity so they’re on the buy side. And is that companies like Carlyle Group, is it Carlyle is it?

Arthur Petropoulos  15:26

Yeah, so Carlyle, KKR, Blackstone are the really big ones. TPG, I mean, there’s a lot of them. And then there’s different stratas of them for size. There’s industry specialists. But yes, that’s generally the buy side are, so it used to be you’d have kind of two big buckets, you’d have private equity that were funded just to buy companies and sell them. And then you had strategic acquirers that were basically just large companies that would occasionally acquire smaller businesses or different capabilities. But now you have lots of strategic companies have have created corporate development and strategic acquisition groups. There’s private equity that buys strategic companies. And so it’s a bit more of a continuum. But yes, generally speaking, that is the buy side is companies and financial buyers and strategic buyers that are looking to make acquisitions. And we represent solely the sell side. So the companies that are looking to either sell or receive that capital.

Gene Tunny  16:22

Okay, so you mentioned your private equity, strategic acquirers. Could that include individuals or is it generally corporations at this or companies?

Arthur Petropoulos  16:34

So what’s interesting about the companies we work with, I was just telling someone, I believe we have the broadest swath of prospective acquirers for a company, right, like, if you were selling that bakery, you probably wouldn’t be selling it to a person or a few different people. Now, if you were selling a billion dollar company, you’re probably only selling it to private equity or a very large strategic company. But in our businesses say you’re selling a $2 million EBITDA company for $12 million, or $15 million, right? The buyers for that are going to be incredibly broad, it could be a publicly traded company, it could be a private equity firm, it could be a family office, it could be an independent sponsor, a search fund, a high net worth individual, right. So yes, it runs that whole spectrum. From of, of both size, and I wouldn’t, sophistication is not correlated entirely with size, right. So like sometimes the best buyer that knows something inside and out is just a person who’s obsessed with one particular field who really wants a company. And sometimes it’s the largest corporation. So the important part of our job is to just, you know, we say kiss a lot of frogs to find the prince, right or turn over, a lot of rocks to find gold, but it’s having all those dialogues, both within each category, and then across categories to make sure we’re finding the right the right home for a business.

Gene Tunny  17:54

Right and how long does it typically take to sell a business? Like once you get in touch, or once they get in touch or you find the business? You get the the contract to, to, you know, you’ve got the agreement to, I mean, I imagine you’re going to be an exclusive seller is that correct? You’re that…

Arthur Petropoulos  18:14

Yes.Yeah.

Gene Tunny  18:16

Gotcha. Okay, what what’s, how long would it typically take?

Arthur Petropoulos  18:19

This is not a shameless self promotion. But if you weren’t using Hill View Partners right, these processes can take, you know, 18 to 24 months. We want in the part of why that proactive versus reactive process is important is we want six month processes we want offers within 100 days. And then after the 100 day mark, it’s really the confirmatory diligence from an acquirer, but we have the process broken down and crystallised into different component parts. That way, the day we sign an engagement with a client, we are getting the information that we need, putting our materials together and doing the research about the acquirer so that we’re out there in the market within two to three weeks talking to people. We’ve pushed the dialogues through a process of asking people for follow up questions, having conversations, Zoom meetings, indications of interest, letters of intent, there’s, we have a lot of steps along the way to keep shaking the tree, if you will, right. And so that way, every time you shake the tree, things fall away, and things fall away, right. And that’s the fastest way to get to the conclusion, while not losing any of the substance cohesion or comprehensive approach to it. And so we find our processes we can run in a six month process, if sometimes it’ll slip a month or two, depending on if the diligence has taken too long, depending on negotiations, but largely speaking, six months start to finish. That’s the goal, and we stick to it.

Gene Tunny  19:44

Gotcha. And in the US, what are the rules around foreign investment like so if you’ve got a foreign company or or you know, high net worth individual wanting to buy a business in America, how does that is that a constraint is there, are there barriers there?

Arthur Petropoulos  20:01

I mean, not really because it doesn’t tend to be, you know, if you’re getting the foreign investors that will come and acquire businesses in the states are largely part of larger organisations that have a global business that’s doing something, right. Like the probability that someone’s going to want to move from Dubai to Oklahoma to buy a water hauling company is probably low. So, you know, candidly, we’ve had people I mean, look, I mean, it’s more likely, you know, that hey, someone’s moving it from, you know, from London and, and they want to buy a business in New England somewhere. I’ve seen those things. So Oh, no, it’s it hasn’t been an issue on our part. I guess there were a couple businesses that were a little sensitive relative to they sold into the aerospace and defence industry. So there was some prohibition against even then we were just told, like, don’t even bother talking to people in these countries, because couldn’t sell to them anyways. But that’s, that’s where we’ve seen so less about the individual or more if there’s kind of sensitive stuff that’s going into government agencies or something that they don’t want to have the exposure to foreign ownership.

Gene Tunny  21:09

Yeah, yeah. Just back on the sale process. So do you have a Expression of Interest process? And then you have a tender process? So how does that work?

Arthur Petropoulos  21:18

Yeah. So so we don’t we don’t go out there with an asking price on something, right? I mean, we can give some guidance in the sense that if someone says, Well, what are they looking for, this or that we can say well, you know, we’re seeing comps, we’re seeing transactions for companies like this falling in this range. Because we don’t want it to always just focus on the dollar amount too because the structure matters, the transition period for ownership matters, what happens to the stakeholders, the employees, the community, the buildings, that whatever it is, right, there’s a lot of variables. And so we’ll provide a little bit of guidance. But largely speaking, we let the process determine the price because the people we’re talking to are sophisticated parties, they know what these things trade for. And, and I think people know, we’re pretty communicative in the sense that we say, Look, if, if you’re looking to just kind of kick the tires and lob something in here, like don’t waste your time, like don’t waste our time either. And so we’re able to get down to the real bonafide parties quick. And in the process. Typically, there’ll be dialogue questions going back and forth, we have a data room that we populate, but we’re usually asked for an indication of interest, and then a letter of intent. So what that means is, send us an email tell us generally how you valuing this, how are you looking at structure this or that, because then we can have a constructive dialogue with the prospective acquirer so that when they finally put something forward on letterhead, they now have a good sense as to how probable it is that it’s gonna work. And it’s kind of had some dialogue, if you will, or discussion. So we like to have information sharing conversations, indication of interests, and more communication form a letter of intent. And a lot of that happens from day 60 to 90 of a process.

Gene Tunny  23:02

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  23:08

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  23:37

Now back to the show.

Can I ask you about how you promote or advertise the businesses? I’m just thinking about real estate. And I mean, you look at some of the things that real estate agents are doing now particularly in, in capital cities in Australia, where people are mad about real estate, you know, they’ve got these cinematic type videos, they’ve got the the houses all dressed up, they’ve put a lot of work into it. And they’ve got these really impressive videos. I imagine you have a prospectus of some kind, like, how do you how do you promote it?

Arthur Petropoulos  24:14

Yeah, I would say there’s less style points in this business. Right? The because it’s less of an emotional acquisition for the most part, right? Like it has to make fundamental sense for companies to buy things. They’re buying capabilities. They’re buying access, like you know, it’s slightly a different sale than saying like, you know, imagine drinking you know, hot chocolate on the veranda on a Friday night, right? So, the product or if you will, or the thing that’s actually transacting has a slightly different approach. Now, that being said, must be professional must be crisp, clear, concise, but the substance of the narrative is more valuable than the form if you will. And so we communicate to the to the prospective acquirers. We have materials that we put together, it’s in our space, we found like the 100 page pitch book, you just everything gets drowned out in, in the one page thing is far too brief. So we have a happy medium that provides kind of the high level overviews of all the things that are important. We have data rooms that we support back, but we kind of sequence or phase the sharing of information. So that way we make sure people are focusing on the optimal or the key elements of it first. But yeah, so it’s it’s, it’s clean, it’s crisp, it’s direct. It’s not as not as razzle dazzle as some other things. But the goal being to communicate the narrative clearly, communicate the value proposition clearly to the prospective acquirer, and getting their attention. Because, you know, the trick in this business sometimes is that if we’re representing a small company to a very big company, the hardest part of that dialogue is getting the first part of their attention, right? If we can get their eyeballs on it, and they like it, well, then it just creates traction amongst themselves, right? Because now they’re saying, Well, this is interesting, want to look at it want to learn more, and they have their own momentum. And at a certain point, they don’t really care what I want to tell them, they care what they want to look at, right? And so they say, Well, I want to learn more about this and learn more about that. So you can’t drown them out with your own narrative. But you do have to make sure you’re giving them enough for not too much and get the attention. And then if the attention leads to interest, it kind of becomes self fulfilling at that point.

Gene Tunny  26:24

Gotcha. And what if, say, I’m looking at, I don’t know a plumbing supplies business in Milwaukee or something like that, could I actually, and I’m a prospective buyer, could I line up a visit to the, the company’s premises and talk to the management?

Arthur Petropoulos  26:41

Sure. At a certain point of the conversation. So we try to phase things out, right? Like, you should be able to, if you are the plumbing supply distributor guy, and you know, this business, right, so we have to kind of validate prospective buyers. So what’s your track record? What’s your history? What’s your industry knowledge? What’s your financial capability to do these things? And let’s say you check out on all these things, well, then you really should be able to give an offer, or at least a skeleton of an offer just based on numbers and conversations with ownership, right. And so there is a certain, so only when we get to like a high level structure, that you would, you can at least put the ? on the back of an envelope. And that ownership can get on board with that we then pivot to you know, whether it’s an in person meeting, facility review, I think the problem with a lot of intermediaries is they allow too much access too soon. And it’s like, you know, this isn’t a field trip, right? Like, we’re not looking to have like 25 people come around and kick the tires and things because it creates an environment of instability for the employees. It’s not good, right? And so you really don’t want to do that until, you know you have something and we try to push. And it’s a tug of war sometimes, but we really try to push things as far as we can. Before we’re doing anything, that could be a disruption.

Gene Tunny  28:00

Gotcha. And you mentioned so you’re trying to validate or vet the buyers, is that that’s a risk mitigation measure I it? Are you, I mean, you’re I guess you want to protect the legacy of the business for the person who sells it. Like, what’s the what’s the thinking there?

Arthur Petropoulos  28:19

It’s not so much from a, I guess it’s qualitative in a way, right? Like, we’re not gonna we don’t want to sell businesses to criminals, or people who have bad track records, you know, in terms of like treating employees and stuff. But, you know, we also don’t, you know, it’s not like, oh, I don’t want it to what’s the Aussie word, you know, a bug in some way, right? Like we don’t like so it doesn’t get to that level, where it’s like, I don’t want these kinds of people or those kinds of, it’s really about capability. It’s about, you know, it’s about industry experience knowledge, feeling comfortable, that they would be a good steward of the business from a fundamentals perspective. Because you’d be surprised. I mean, you know, we always joke and say it’s separating the prospects from the suspects. But it’s, you there’s, there’s a lot of people out there that I think are looking at businesses is like, you know, when you sell a house, right, like you ever sell a house and you put the house for sale, and take buyer, the neighbours show up? Yeah. And it’s like they’re not buying the house. And it’s like that same neighbour, it’s like their hobby is to go look at houses every weekend, right? And they just go in and they like, eat the food and kick around and like, take some paper towels. And so in business, you’d be surprised that a lot of the same names show up and so we want real buyers, but we don’t want to waste any time. There’s no value. There’s no style points to fluffing up the numbers of interested parties on the front end. It’s no good for anybody. So it’s more about capability and are they a bonafide prospect. And and you know, qualitatively, are they going to be the right steward. It’s less about, you know, did they go to a proper preparatory boarding school. It’s more about actual capabilities.

Gene Tunny  30:01

Yeah, yeah. And is this regulated Arthur? Like I imagine it’s not SEC, but are there state regulations around this? I mean, what’s the

Arthur Petropoulos  30:10

Yeah, and there are there are SEC regulations pertaining to private company sales, you know, relative to sizing and structure of deals in a way that does not kind of conflate with securities. And then state by state, there’s different considerations depending on on what it is, for the most part, though, this is it’s kind of free market, third party transactions to other people who are owning things. And, you know, not many of these transactions are going to be either, you know, pivotal to national defence, or, you know, under like, Hart Scott Rodino Act for like, antitrust and stuff like that. I mean, these tend to be, you know, if you said, What is kind of the typical situation, it’s a company that does a thing, either for a particular product or geography, there’s a giant company or bigger company that does it everywhere else, and wants to get access to their geography, and they kind of bolt them on. So. And that’s, you know, sometimes it’s merger of equals, sometimes it’s just one person, but a lot of times it’s kind of the aggregation strategy that’s looking to bolt something on. And so it is regulated, and there’s certainly laws and rules to it. But it’s not to the same level of securities, because not dealing with, you know, selling shares, small amounts of shares to large number of kind of passive investors.

Gene Tunny  31:31

Gotcha. Is there much legal risk on the seller side, I’m thinking, I mean, you know, with any sort of tender process or auction, there’s always, you know, there’ll always be a significant number of people where there’s the the winners curse, so to speak. How do you deal with that?

Arthur Petropoulos  31:47

Yeah, so part of the negotiation. And so once we have a deal, basically, under a letter of intent, you enter into the diligence phase, in which case, the buyer puts forward a purchase and sale agreement for the consummation of the transaction. So unlike real estate, where you have a purchase and sale agreement that you sign, and then you enter into diligence, in corporate transactions, you sign a letter of intent, you do the diligence, and then the purchase and sale agreement is signed, kind of coterminous with the closing of the transaction. But within that, within the purchase and sale agreement are representations and warranties both ways, right. There’s disclosure schedules, so that a seller would have to say, Are there any pending litigation? Is there any complaints? Or what are the customers you’ve lost? There’s things that have to be put in there. And from a buyer’s perspective, they have to say, what they are willing to take, you know, at face value. And so the way we an old, an old mentor of mine said, reps and warranties are there for, you know, fraud, willful misrepresentation, things like that, to protect buyers against, but it is not in what he called, he said, It’s not schmuck insurance, right? It’s not, it’s not insurance that you paid, you didn’t pay too much, or you didn’t know this and do that, right. Like, this is a business between sophisticated parties. And so if a seller sells a company, you know, without using a person like us, and they don’t get a good price and don’t get a good structure, they really don’t have any recourse to complain about it, because that’s the deal they agreed to. Buyers similarly if they, you know, if it’s not, if it’s not in the contract, then then it’s, it’s not part of it. So point is, it sounds more adversarial than it is. There’s just kind of customary reps and warranties that very clearly define what the post transaction risk or exposure is from both parties. They are negotiated pretty heavily by the attorneys. And, you know, as it pertains to the business elements, we get involved as well. But our general positioning on it is we want to protect the buyers from fraud from, you know, willful misrepresentation things we don’t know, which don’t happen with the clients that we work with. But what we don’t want is for anybody to just say, like, I bought the company, I mismanaged it. And now I want, you know, some money back because I didn’t do the right thing, right? That’s not That’s what we avoid. And nobody really asked for that. But we don’t want it to be grey.

Gene Tunny  34:15

Right. So do you engage the lawyer or does the seller engage the lawyer?

Arthur Petropoulos  34:21

It depends on the situation. And it depends on what kind of an attorney a seller’s using. And so sometimes, if a seller is using a corporate attorney for a lot of activities that they’re with they’ll say, hey, I really want our attorney in the mix here. And that’s perfectly fine. We work with lots of people’s attorneys and that usually when we get the letter of intent, negotiated but not signed, that’s typically when they come into the process review that and then we work alongside them shepherding diligence. But there are other times where people say like, you know, I you know, my attorney is a great guy. He’s a great friend. You know, he helped me buy my flat in Brisbane, but you you know, I have a $50 million business, maybe he will play a part in the process. But do you have someone that you can bring in that just does corporate transactions all day, in which case, we have a global network of people that we’ve worked with, that we can bring in, depending on the locale of the business. So it’s situational. And we can work with clients either way, depending on their preference, but we always keep a strong roster of, of attorneys. And I, what I’d say is the right types of attorneys, because you can have, you know, anybody can pick up the phone book and call up the most expensive law firm in the world. But it’s where do you find kind of that optimal mix of value and capability? And so whether it’s people that have spun off of the big law firms running smaller boutiques that are slightly off the radar, or are more tactical people, we like those kinds of relationships.

Gene Tunny  35:46

Yeah, very good. I should ask Arthur, how did you get in, how did you get into this? I mean, you mentioned you worked on Wall Street. Could you just tell us a bit about what you studied? And did that help you get into Wall Street and then your path to Hill View? Partners, please?

Arthur Petropoulos  36:03

Yeah, sure. So when I grew up, my father used to read, he had a very broad spectrum of books he was interested in, and ideas. And so I remember, you know, it was gonna be Plato’s Republic or Aesop’s Fables. But he read a lot of history books to us. And so I remember going through like, you know, Amerigo Vespucci, he was travelling the world selling pickles or the Dutch West Indies Company was fine, you know, whether it was silk or spices, but it felt like the history of the world was the history of business and war for other things, but business, right commerce, and, you know, the idea of a finite amount of resources and an infinite amount of want. And so when I studied more and I would get into like the industrialization of America, and, you know, Carnegie Steel turning into US Steel, and all of these aggregations, I found the combination of business transactions of finance of growth and in aggregation of industry to be fascinating. And when I grew up, the only people I knew that who really had their hands in these things were always attorneys, you hear like, oh, this attorney just helped this person sell this company. Because I do think particularly in days past, I think a lot of attorneys kind of served a dual role in these things. And they still are, you know, key advisors to companies. But so I went to law, I studied undergrad business, I actually wanted, I wanted to get a minor in music theory, I played the piano. But I remember my mom said, if you want to play the piano, you can just leave school and stay in the living room. But we, but anyway business was the key focus in undergrad, and I went to law school, and law school doesn’t have majors, but you can effectively create your own focus. And so we created or I focused on corporate transactions, both from a mergers and acquisitions and financing perspective. And it was when I was in law school that I was reading the case law, you’d have to study of your KKR and acquiring Nabisco and Philip Morris, and this and that. And when you started reading all of these cases, you’d say, well, who is that? And how do they work? And how does this work? And so once I figured out, what is an investment bank, what is a private equity firm? How does capital work, who are these lenders, that’s when I think the world kind of opened up and I said, Ah, like, there’s this whole ecosystem of corporate transactions and all these participants in it. And then I realised, you know, although I believe the law degree is phenomenal in terms of understanding the allocation of risk and structuring of things. I found that, you know, the investment banking was a bit more firmly in line with where my interest was. And so it’s not an atypical path in the sense that I think Lloyd Blankfein and Brian Moynihan and Sam Zell like they all actually had law degrees, because I think they went through a similar kind of learning exercise. And so even that’s, that’s how I was in law school. And then did whatever a young guy looking for a job, you know, picked up the phone and found lists of names and called and called and called and got a job helping middle market companies sell themselves and then went to the buying side and had a few jobs in New York and then said, Hey, we should start our own thing, came back to Rhode Island to do that. And here we are today a little wiser, and with a little more grey hair.

Gene Tunny  39:19

And I mean, there’s no disadvantage to being in Rhode Island I imagine is there?

Arthur Petropoulos  39:24

You know what, there was a time but I think it predated me a little bit where if you wanted to be in finance in the States, it was either really LA or New York. And then you saw outposts pop up in Houston for oil and gas businesses or, you know, Florida because of how many New Yorkers moved there. You know Boston for pharmaceutical businesses. But my notion when we started Hill View was it was already felt like no one really cared where anyone was, as long as A) you could get to where you need it to be, and B) you produce results and B was far more important than any other stuff. So, so no, I mean, I think like we sit right between Boston and New York. So it is a nice hub to kind of do stuff locally, but we’re doing things all over the world at this juncture. And, you know, again, so long as we produce the results, then, you know, it doesn’t matter if we’re in San Francisco or Saskatchewan.

Gene Tunny  40:05

Yeah, yeah. Because even if you did take a meeting in New York City, for example, what’s that a couple hours away is it at most?

Arthur Petropoulos  40:19

Yeah three hours.

Gene Tunny  40:21

Three hours. Gotcha. Okay. Righto. So before we wrap up, Arthur, I’d like to ask I mean, like what do you see as the value that you’re adding to the economy or the business brokers, then we might talk about the other side of it, the private equity, because there are a lot of there’s a lot of negativity out there about private equity, a lot of concerns about market concentration, and these leveraged buyouts and all of that. So could you just talk about what you see as the benefits to the economy of you’re, what you’re doing to start with please?

Arthur Petropoulos  41:04

Sure, I believe that, you know, capital and transactions are kind of the the oil that facilitates or greases the skids for the economy in the sense that transactions have always taken place. But if you read about, you know, John Rockefeller going through Standard Oil, I mean, he was just kind of bludgeoning people and buying things for nickels and in like, you know, there was a lot of unfair competitive practices. Whereas I think, as the capital markets, and as the M & A markets have evolved, it’s facilitated things so that they happen faster, so that they happen in fairer terms for the selling party. And ultimately, I think, allow for the evolution of industry on a quicker and more efficient basis. And also, I think bolster, economic, competitive positioning, you know, particularly for domestic companies, versus kind of international, you know, many times like you have US conglomerates, competing against, you know, state run organisations in other countries, right. So the only way you’re going to compete is on scale and is own size and is on innovation. You know, there’s always that joke about politics, they say, the number one rule of economics is the idea of scarcity, that there’s more want than there is stuff. And the number one rule of politics is to ignore the number one rule of economics. And so I forgot what economist said that but so in reality, right, there’s scarcity. And there’s, there’s scarcity of talent, there’s scarcity of stuff of services of goods. And so the further you can evolve any particular industry, it does allow for even as painful as it can be the reallocation of human capital, to things that are less efficient, right. And so it’s almost this, like, it does push things forward, like, you know, irrespective of how much anybody could complain about, you know, life in America in 2023. Like, it’s hard to argue that, like, your life is not just as good as like a mediaeval King, right, like you have. I mean, literally, I’m sitting in a chair right now, I’ve got the Library of Alexandria, in my pocket, I can have more pizzas show up at my door in a half an hour than then I can ever eat. I mean, it’s like, it’s amazing. But the only reason all of these things happened is because, you know, the guy said, Hey, I have one pizza place, I could own 10 pizza places, and we should do delivery. And then so, you know, Little Caesars and Pizza Hut and Domino’s. Right. And so it’s like, I think that there’s, there’s places and ways to kind of rein in just the pure animal spirits that can come out with that. But at the same time, I mean, that is why for all of our black eyes, you know, the, you know, the most capital, capitalist focused countries have been the most economically dominant because they allow for that. And I think that the part that we play as intermediaries in the capital, intermediaries is facilitating the efficiency of that exercise and allowing for innovation and consolidation on a quicker and effective basis and protect while protecting the interests of those who contributed to the evolution right to the sellers of companies.

Gene Tunny  44:10

Gotcha. And what about on the buyer side, the private equity, do you have any thoughts on on that side? There’s this caricature of Gordon Gekko going in and, you know, the concerns about loading companies up with debt and stripping money out of companies and, and sacking lots of workers. Do you have any thoughts on that? Do you think private equity adds value out there in the economy?

Arthur Petropoulos  44:37

Absolutely. Because I mean, I think that they very much are the facilitators of innovation and consolidation. Right? It’s capital. It’s looking for return on capital that’s doing that. But you know, taking a few steps back, you know, if you think of the United States economy, a lot of that kind of Gordon Gekko element was a bit of an idiosyncratic situation. So you had, you know, let’s say, we leave World War Two and all all of these conglomerate companies start to form, right? Because they basically apply like war learned processes and they just say, we’ll buy everything right and putting it together. And so you had, you know, CBS owned the Steinway Piano Company, and you had all these, like things that came together because they figured they could just run the same process. And so you hit the 1970s, you have huge inflation, because of too much money printing and we won’t get into that. And then Nixon takes the dollar off the gold standard, inflation goes through the roof values of companies go down. And so you start to see all of these companies where it’s like, you’ve got five different companies combined, that all do different things, and no one knows how to value any of it. Because it’s like, you know, the same company owns Jello pudding that owns like, you know a concrete company, or whatever it might be. So the initial premise of it was buying under, under, misunderstood assets that were put together incorrectly, and disaggregating them in a way that allowed for a better value of each constituent element. Secondly, there was a lot of, you remember the Gordon Gekko speech about, you know, tell their paper company when he’s saying like, all of the executives own 1% of the company, and they’re just pillaging it from cash. There was a certain glut of industry in that time period of inefficiency, that was losing kind of our competitive positioning on a global basis. So you can make the argument that and this is where it gets tricky it because, yes, there were a lot of layoffs. But truly it created efficiencies and companies that allowed them to be globally competitive reallocating the human capital to industries, you know, that made that were more ripe for innovation. Now, there’s pain that goes along with that. And then it’s not to be ignorant of the fact that there were a lot of greedy people involved, right, like all of that leverage was not necessary to accomplish these things, it was just a way of choosing the, you know, choosing the return. So the pendulum goes back and forth. And anytime it goes too far, it will pull back, what I would say is that the modern incarnation of private equity has largely been one of innovation and scale, right. And so buying up a lot of small companies and aggregating them, I think, the biggest myth in private equity in today’s environment. Now, I’m not saying if private equity goes out and buys a bloated software company and fires a bunch of people. But you know, that wasn’t making any profit. But I’m saying when private equity goes out there and buys an aggregation of distribution or manufacturing companies, they want to keep the people, the people are the valuable part. That’s where there’s scarcity. So in today’s environment, that notion of over levered like financial engineering and layoffs is really, I think, a relic in private equity in today’s environment does a lot more, I think, good than harm, and a lot of those excesses have been had been pulled in. That’s not to say, you know, there’s not exceptions to that. But in today’s environment, they are a accelerant of aggregation and innovation, I think in in industry as they consolidate different businesses.

Gene Tunny  47:59

Okay, very good. Arthur that’s been terrific, I’ve learned a lot I learned, I hope you don’t mind, I grilled you over the process and what you do exactly. And I mean I learned a lot about how this, these transactions occur. So thanks, heaps for that. That was great. Tell us about your, your outreach, or your YouTube and newsletter or whatever, please. That’d be great.

Arthur Petropoulos  48:23

Yeah, so I’d say check us out on YouTube at Hill View Partners, if you just typed in Arthur Petropoulos, you’d come up on and on LinkedIn our company page Hil View Partners both on YouTube and LinkedIn, we put out two videos a week, talking about just different topics in the mergers and acquisitions and capital world kind of recurring themes, almost like an FAQ of the things we’re always talking about. And then reach out to us, either on LinkedIn, myself, or the company page, or on our homepage, hillviewps.com. So hillview, P as in Peter, S as in sam .com, where you can reach out and set some time up as well. But that’s where to where to find us. And on a, you know, on a closing thought, not to get too philosophical, but I think I think anytime you kind of take a position, that something is just entirely wrong or entirely right, or you’re you’re missing a lot of the nuance, right? And so a lot of the economy has excess in both ways. Right? And so, there are, you know, have there been situations where, you know, companies have been too greedy? Yes. Have there been situations where, you know, look at the industrialization of what America had lots of greed there, right? Look at situations where the unions were too greedy and look at how the steel disappeared in the 1970s. Right, so like, so I think the key to being good at our job, and I won’t extrapolate it enough to say good at anything is like you must understand nuance, you must understand subtlety. There’s four sides to every story and the truth sits somewhere in between and so it’s our job to kind of see reality for what it is not necessarily what we wish it would be. And by virtue of taking that kind of sober yet realistic look on things you know, we’re not, we’re not people that are always cynical and say it’s bad. We’re not people that are always optimistic and it’s always good. But we say, life is hard. The world can be a nasty place. But there are glimpses of good and nice things along the way. And we, we, we like those. And so any event for what it’s worth, that’s our that’s our view of the universe that you didn’t ask for. But this is a this has been good Gene, I appreciate it.

Gene Tunny  50:22

Very good, Arthur. I’ve really enjoyed it. And yep, I like having rounding it out with that philosophical thought. So I think that’s terrific. So yep. Very good. Arthur Petropoulos from Hill View Partners. Thanks so much for the conversation. I really enjoyed it.

Arthur Petropoulos  50:37

Likewise Gene. Appreciate it.

Gene Tunny  50:41

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

51:28

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this where to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

From Adelaide to Global Power: Young Rupert Murdoch w/ Walter Marsh – EP210

Journalist Walter Marsh talks about his new book “Young Rupert: The Making of the Murdoch Empire.” Walter and show host Gene Tunny discuss Rupert Murdoch’s early years in Adelaide, South Australia and how they shaped his later career. From challenging established systems to becoming a globally influential media mogul, Murdoch’s career has been highly controversial. 
Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

About this episode’s guest: Walter Marsh

Walter Marsh is a journalist based in Tarntanya/Adelaide with a background in history and culture. A former editor and staff writer at The Adelaide Review and Rip It Up, his writing has appeared in The Guardian, The Monthly, The Saturday Paper, and InDaily.

What’s covered in EP210

  • Rupert Murdoch’s career and the making of the Murdoch empire. (0:00)
  • Rupert Murdoch’s life and career. (3:09)
  • The origins of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire in Adelaide. (8:16)
  • Newspaper circulation wars in Adelaide. (14:01)
  • The business strategies of a successful entrepreneur. (20:28)
  • A controversial murder case and its aftermath in Australia. (23:35)
  • A historical libel trial involving Rupert Murdoch and his newspaper. (28:09)
  • Media, power, and ethics in the Rupert Murdoch era. (33:20)
  • Rupert Murdoch’s legacy. (38:15)

Links relevant to the conversation

You can purchase Young Rupert via Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Young-Rupert-making-Murdoch-empire/dp/1761380044

Author’s website:

https://waltermarsh.com.au/

Transcript: From Adelaide to Global Power: Young Rupert Murdoch w/ Walter Marsh – EP210

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Walter Marsh  00:00

I found it very telling that in this period where he is kind of the good guy challenging systems that were overdue for a challenge and these elite establishments that were kind of begging to be shaken up and undermined. You know, the variables were so different when he started but this kind of dynamic have always been the inside or outside of sticking it to these establishments kind of set the groundwork for everything that came afterwards.

Gene Tunny  00:32

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. Last month in September 2023, it was announced that Rupert Murdoch would be stepping down as chairman of the Fox News corporations in November with the possible exception of William Knox, Darcy Murdoch’s been the Australian businessman who’s had the greatest impact on world affairs. He’s had an extraordinary and of course highly controversial career. And believe it or not at all began Adelaide, the city of churches in South Australia. Adelaide journalist Walter Marsh has written a great book about Murdoch’s defining years in Adelaide in the 1950s. The book is called Young Rupert, the making of the Murdoch empire. And I’m delighted to have been able to interview Walter for the show. You’ll learn about how the fear satellite newspaper circulation will set Murdoch on a path to domestic and then global expansion. And you’ll learn about how Murdoch figured out he needed to get close to the politically powerful if he was to succeed. Young Rupert’s a great book, so please consider buying it and supporting a really talented journalist. Details are in the shownotes Okay, let’s get into the episode. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Walter Marsh on young Rupert Walter Marsh, thanks for joining me on the programme.

Walter Marsh  02:18

Thanks for having me, Gene.

Gene Tunny  02:20

It’s a pleasure, Walter. I’ve really enjoyed reading your new book, young Rupert, the making of the Murdoch empire. So came out earlier this year, it’s become even more topical with with Rupert Murdoch stepping down as the head of News Corp the other week. So this is really good timing. So it’s good to have you on the show.

Walter Marsh  02:44

It’s been a pretty crazy to the books been out for two months, and it all the way through writing it. I you know, you’ve conscious when you’re writing a book about a 92 year old that there are certain inevitable deadlines, I guess that you’re on the playing in the back of your mind. But the fact that’s come out that this this resignation happened after the book came out, works pretty well. So I’ve been keeping very busy. So thanks for having me on.

Gene Tunny  03:09

Pleasure. Yeah, so just thinking he’s got good genes, I think because his mother lived until over 100 or nearly 200, if I remember correctly.

Walter Marsh  03:17

Yeah. And there’s a recurring thing in the book as well as people have observed and I didn’t want to, you know, body shame a young Rupert Murdoch. But a few people observed that he were on quite a bit of weight in his 20s. But then I was finding when I was researching the last chapter, which sort of takes the story full circle in the 80s. That these reports on these takeover attempts of the Hilda weekly times when he came back to to Australia in the 80s. And they often started with the sort of doorstop interviews that he was taking whilst going for his morning jog, in his, you know, running short shorts. And so clearly, either one of his co workers or one of his wives whispered in his ear, Hey, your dad died of a heart attack in his 60s and had many health problems got to really become a thing. Other people did describe him as a fitness freak later in life. So he got the memo.

Gene Tunny  04:12

Yes, yes. And his father, of course, was Keith Murdoch, the famous newspaperman. So we might talk about him a bit a bit later, before we get into it. Walter, would you be able to tell me a bit about your, your work as a journalist? Are you a freelancer or your independent journalist at the moment?

Walter Marsh  04:29

Yeah, I’m a bit of freelance for the past three years. Before that I was. I worked as the digital editor of the Adelaide review, which was a long running sort of arts culture magazine, here in Adelaide, that shut down in 2020, sort of as a result of the pandemic. So that kind of was the big push that it took to get cracking on this book project that I’ve been thinking about for a few years. So I’ve kind of come from that culture and arts reporting background, but also In history as well, I’ve been working in the history space and studied at uni. And there was at uni when maybe 10 years ago now that I first started looking into this area as my honours thesis, right. So I did that kind of saw a lot of the sources, a lot of the the narratives that later inform the book, but then happily put on a shelf for the best part of 10 years and tried to work as a journalist. But you know, the way the industry was going, it led me inevitably to go back and think about writing this book. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  05:30

And where was your Where did you do your thesis? Which university? The University of Adelaide? Good one. Okay. All right. And that’s on. Is that on North Terrace? Yeah. And is that near? I mean, Adelaide. So it’s quite compact, isn’t it? So you’d be close to where a lot of the events in you would have been close to where a lot of the events in this book took place, wouldn’t you?

Walter Marsh  05:51

Well, we so much of the events of this book, the Adelaide stuff at least happened? Yeah, on North Terrace. It’s a long street, but they really crafted cram a lot in there.

Gene Tunny  05:58

Yeah. And lots of old, you know, the famous buildings, the parliament, the railway station, if I remember correctly, grand old colonial buildings. So yes, yes. Very good. And can I ask have you ever worked for the Murdoch? Corporation for News Corp?

Walter Marsh  06:18

Yeah, it’s a great question. I did. And I kind of touched upon it in the book, just at the end. But I, when my first big job in the media, editing this sort of street press music, magazine website called rip it up that close down. And one of the things I’ve found about being made redundant in the media and the publication closing down is it’s a very public way of saying I’m unemployed and solid, please hire me. So someone reached out and I did probably the things a month that most in 2016 of, of copyediting work as a freelancer for a food guide that the advertiser were publishing. So that was my little experience inside Keith Murdoch house, which was the launch of that magazine after I’d finished working there. That is the informs the opening scene of the book, and this rooftop party. So that was my experience. Really. Yeah. And that was an interesting time as well, because it was 2016. And even though I was in this very kind of inoffensive corner of the Murdoch for the Empire, it was you know, Trump was in the background debating Hillary and the 2016 blackout happened while I was in the office. So it was an interesting time.

Gene Tunny  07:30

Yes, yeah. Remember that now? Now you mentioned it. And that’s the that’s quite a striking building out in Adelaide. Is that the Keith Murdock house, if I remember correctly? Yeah. So

Walter Marsh  07:39

yeah, way mastery. It’s this big, big glass building that they built less than 20 years ago, and before that, they had this big 1960s building, which really got opened just at the end of the events that are focused on in the book as well. But yeah, it’s definitely looms large over over Adelaide, even though in the last couple of years, because, you know, News Corp has shed a lot of workers lately that I think, as of when I published the book, multiple floors were actually rented out to SA Health, the government health department, so that an E News Corp doesn’t even fill it up anymore.

Gene Tunny  08:14

Right? Oh, yeah, exactly. Given what’s happened with with media. We can chat about that a bit later. So, Walter, I’d like to begin by reading from your summary. I think this is terrific. How you’ve, you’ve summarised this so this is one of your this is a note from the author. For as long as I can remember, my hometown Adelaide, has been a one paper town, a capital city, whose sole daily newspapers been owned by Rupert Murdoch’s use limited for the past 30 years. As I grew up, I realised the company behind this press monopoly extended far beyond my city, was a vast and controversial media empire with global reach. From the cartoons. I watched to the tabloids and cable news networks raising the temperature of Western democracies. And Adelaide wasn’t just a piece of that story. It was ground zero. Although, can you explain how Adelaide was ground zero for the Murdoch empire, please?

Walter Marsh  09:09

Yeah, I mean, it’s the sort of the starting point really, of the book. But in terms of the greater Murdoch story, it really, when piecing together the narrative, you can see that it could have gone a number of different ways. So it really the story starts. And the book starts with Rupert’s father, Sir Keith Murdock, who had spent his whole life his whole career building his name in journalism. He had started off as a freelancer as a reporter and sort of worked his way up over decades, to be the chairman of the Herald and weekly times and he really built that into a nation wide press Empire really. But he was sort of a manager really didn’t actually own that company. So the last few years of his life was spent really carefully trying to build stitch together this sort of separate Separate empire that he could hand over to his son Rupert. And sometimes that involves some, you know, some almost underhanded tactics of convincing the board of the Herald to sell off things like News Limited to him in a private capacity and used, I think it was there’s a, the British Parliament had a Royal Commission into monopoly. And he kind of used that as a as impetus to offload some of their Adelaide holdings. So they didn’t get accused of a press monopoly, but that played into a kid’s hands. So he had the Adelaide interests. He also had a magazine publisher Southdown press in Melbourne, which published new idea, this women’s magazine still going, I think, and there was also the Courier Mail and Queensland press, in Queensland, in Brisbane. And that was the kind of the crux of what Rupert was in line to inherit. But then, because the family itself, you know, Keith had been this a newspaper executive for his whole life. But he wasn’t necessarily a very rich, or at least a liquid sort of rich man himself. So it stretched himself very thin to build up this inheritance for Rupert took on a lot of debt. But when he died, quite suddenly, really, he had staged a border and coup at the Herald only, like 24 hours before he died. So he wasn’t expecting to die quite as suddenly as he did. But he left a lot of things hanging in the air with this inheritance. So Rupert, and his mother or Rupert’s Mother, you know, was very intent on not leaving the family in debt. So sold off a lot of the really key pieces of the furniture, the particularly the Brisbane papers, which left Rupert to basically go from Oxford, to Adelaide to sort of start start over again, you know, this wasn’t a small company, by any means. It had this afternoon newspaper. He also had the Sunday mail, which was the biggest circulation paper in Adelaide. So it was it was nothing to sneeze at. But it was, you know, if Keith had lived a little bit longer, and had managed to pull off what he was trying to work towards, maybe would have started off in Brisbane, maybe if Rupert had convinced his mother to hold on to Brisbane and get rid of News Limited, he would have started off in a different place. But it just so happened that in the circumstances, and this sort of economic pressures that were facing the family that he had to kind of bite the bullet and come to Adelaide, and I do think the circumstances in which he came to Adelaide and the environment he was working in, did have quite an impact in the kind of company that later became.

Gene Tunny  12:31

Yeah, absolutely. So Keith Murdoch had a really, I mean, even though he died in his 60s, I mean, he had a huge life, didn’t he? And he, he was a war correspondent. I think he was famous for highlighting just the some, you know, just the, you know, what was going on at Gallipoli and the Dardanelles campaign, just what a shambles. That was. I think he was famous for that, wasn’t he? If I remember correctly, yeah. Yeah. And so Murdoch, Rupert, Rupert Murdoch comes back to Adelaide. He’s from Oxford. And he was renowned as a Marxist at Oxford, wasn’t he? And he comes back, is he 22 years old, and he turns up in Adelaide is at 1953.

Walter Marsh  13:11

Yeah, 19, September 1953, is when he really touches down. So I’d been under a year after his father’s, his father died, he finished his studies at Oxford, you know, corresponded with his mother furiously, trying to convince her not to sell, unable to convince her at the end, but then eventually says, Yes, I’ll come to Adelaide and sort of start off, you know, take the reins of the company there. And the board in Adelaide of us limited were all much older men, and they were kind of content to let him have a go at it. And he had this very the title we have as publisher, which isn’t very common in Australian newspapers in the sort of hastily defined enough that he could get away with doing whatever he wanted, and poke his nose into a bit of everything and the money side, the editorial side and kind of ease himself into the company.

Gene Tunny  14:01

Yeah. And so what was the paper in Adelaide that he inherited? And its its rival was the advertiser is that right? That’s the famous paper in Adelaide. Is it? What’s that? Yeah, so

Walter Marsh  14:11

So the, the advertiser is the morning paper, and that was the biggest daily newspaper in the city. And it still is today, it’s the only one. But then it’s afternoon competitor in the time of afternoon newspapers when they still exist. It was the news, which was owned by this company News Limited, and actually the advertiser and these limited head since 1930, early 1930s. Keith Murdoch had actually come into Adelaide on behalf of the Herald and weekly times and sort of invaded and taken over both of these papers. So up for you know, the best part of 20 years the Herald weekly times had run Adelaide as a virtual press monopoly of their own it was only a few years before Keith’s death that he carved out the News Limited and the news as this sort of our sort of rival to the Herald and weekly times owned advertiser that was run by the chairman of the weekly time. So there’s a lot of conflicting interests. And then when Rupert comes into town, sort of the gloves are off and it’s just open competition between the two papers.

Gene Tunny  15:16

Okay, right. Oh, so he’s he’s got a newspaper and obviously it gives up any any ideas of socialism or Marxism. That interesting little aspect of Murdoch. Yeah. So I like how you describe this. So I might read this other passage out because I’ve got a question about this. So in the synopsis for the book, it says led by Rupert’s friend Ally and editor in chief Rowan rivet, the fledgling Murdoch press began a seven year campaign of circulation, wars, expansion and courtroom battles that divided the city and would lay the foundations for a global empire if Rupert and Rowan didn’t end up in custody first. So okay, well, you’ve got to tell me more about that. What? How nasty did this circulation wall get? What were the courtroom battles about? And were they really at risk of doing in doing jail time?

Walter Marsh  16:12

Well, the circulation matters really start from even before Rupert touches down in Adelaide. So in an in amongst the the sort of aftermath of case death, there’s this guy sort of trying to convey in the book, there’s a scramble for control of these assets that he’d been building up. And all of his former colleagues at the Herald, his rivals, as well. They’re all sort of competing to sort of carve up Rupert’s inheritance. And they’re all telling each other vastly different stories. And they’re all saying, you know, Keith told me he wants to do this. Keith told me he wanted to do that. Keith is always playing people off against each other. So no one really knew what he what his true plans were. And in amongst that, once it became clear that that Rupert would have to come to Adelaide, to start over, the chairman of the advertisers to Lloyd dumar, who had been installed by Keith Murdoch, you know, 20 years earlier, when they came into Adelaide. He made this overtures to Rupert’s mother, Elizabeth, and kind of said, look, the News Limited sort of financial security depends on having this Sunday paper, which is the only Sunday paper it has this huge circulation, there’s no competition in that kind of market. It’s got its own little monopoly. We’re going to come in and we’re going to launch a Sunday paper, and we’re going to really put up a huge fight, you guys have limited resources. And, you know, there’s every is every likelihood that we’re going to just completely crush, crush this fledgling Murdoch press as it was at the time. But the alternative, the ultimatum he gave her was that you can sell the mail, and he’s limited all back to the health and weekly times and sort of restoring sort of a reset to what the status quo was three years earlier, before, you know, three or four years early before Keith had started carving it away for Rupert’s inheritance. And when Rupert found about about this, he was outraged. He was absolutely incensed. There were some really colourful letters that I was very pleased to find in the National Library of Australia. And so as soon as he’s made the decision, and he makes it very quickly that they’re not going to sell out he does want to have a go at making his life in newspapers. They said about the news news and his team, Ron Rivera, they all start secretly making plans about sort of battening down the hatches and preparing for the competition that’s about to happen when they launched, the advertiser launches this Sunday advertiser. And meanwhile, across town, the Sunday advertisers, you know, they’re they’re all doing these big research trips and criss crossing the world to find out the most modern advances in in sort of circulation building and newspapers and building up audiences. And so in, I think it’s August or September, the advertising the Sunday advertiser launches, and it’s immediately it’s a big threat to use them to them Rupert’s inheritance, and it’s not long after Rupert touches down that the mail, the news, limited paper, fires back and puts on the front page, accuses the advertiser of making a bid for press monopoly, and makes public this story of this kind of overtures to his mother, you know, the newly recently widowed recently bereaved wife of Sir Keith and kind of trying to strong arm, the Murdochs into selling them out, and they fret and it was framed in these terms where it wasn’t just a story of a family business, or, you know, the inheritance of a 22 year old, but it was this big, you know, this was a question of freedom press freedom in South Australia. And, you know, the the male and US Limited was going to stand up against this attempt to have, I guess, what was the quote something along the lines of all the states press in the communities press in the hands of one click, or group or group of businessmen, which is, of course deeply ironic now because the advertiser is the only paper in town and it’s been owned by Murdoch since the 80s. But that was really the start where the You know, the gloves were off, and they were really launching into this fight. And they thought they both papers threw everything at it for about two years until they eventually reached a kind of stalemate, they were kind of both speaking to the same audience both using all the same techniques, and haemorrhaging money in an unsustainable way. And so eventually, they, the advertiser kind of Rupert viewed as a capitulation, where they said, Actually, let’s merge the papers and publish one Sunday paper that’s co owned by the two companies. So it was kind of a draw, I guess. But for Rupert, when he’s coming up against this much better resourced paper and company that has ties to the Herald and weekly times, but also internationally as well. Now to have survived to your Onslaught was a pretty huge achievement, but also drove home to him that to really compete and to beat them, I guess that he had to expand it and match them in terms of the resources. So that kind of led to this treadmill of never ending expansion, I think that we see intake all around the world. And because, as Keith was, you know, he didn’t have a lot of capital, the family’s own capital to draw from the way he funded that was by taking out loans, he didn’t want to dilute the family’s control of the company by bringing in extra investors or shareholders. So a lot of borrowed money from banks. But that led him to this sort of cycle where the expansion is funded by borrowed money, he has to pay off the borrowed money. So in every town that he acquires something, in order to expand, he has to make that as profitable as possible as quickly as possible, as quickly as possible. So I think that goes a long way to explaining how, in a structural way, those early competitions kind of set him on this path of this sort of fight back siege mentality, which set him on the on this path of never ending expansion. And in every place, he went to, kind of pushing, pushing the bar, and maybe lowering the tone and pursuit of profit in every place that he went all around the world. And when you do that on a kind of industrial scale, it has, I think, a cumulative effect. I don’t think anyone would deny that.

Gene Tunny  22:10

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  22:16

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, for we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  22:45

Now back to the show. I was gonna ask you about that I was going to ask you about how his time in Adelaide set him up for later expansion. And I was wondering whether it was because he, it was super profitable. And then that gave them the capital, but it sounds like no, actually. I mean, it did provide some earnings, obviously. But they went and expanded. They needed, they needed to borrow the money. And then that set them on that on that growth path. And they just because

Walter Marsh  23:14

he and because he’s a real opportunist as well, like he worked, he didn’t have so much money and resources that he could pick and choose. He’d always just buy whatever was available, whatever got his foot in the door of the market, whatever he could convince someone to sell to him who whoever underestimated him enough to sell something to him. He took it and then turn it into something profitable, which you saw repeated. But to go back to your question about the whether they were going to end up in jail along the way. Alongside this, this sort of economic competitions, there was this political aspect as well where South Australia in the 1950s. And the decade before it had been run by this sort of conservative establishment, the liberal country league party had been in power for over two decades. And they were kept in power by a gerrymander where country voters had twice the electoral power of those in the city. And so even though they were losing the popular vote, this party kept getting returned to power and that party and that establishment was backed in hard by the advertiser. So So Rupert, and this comes back to the sort of left wing aspect of Rupert and rounder of it. They were both quite left wing at the start politically, their personal politics, but they also saw that there was, you know, if more than the the majority of voting for labour, but they’re not getting in. Clearly, that is a huge potential readership, if they made a concerted attempt to speak to this disenfranchised market that isn’t being spoken to by the advertiser, then they know they’ve got a lot of ground to gain and a lot of money to make. And I think that ties into this challenging of the establishment through legal challenges to the report. chewing through, you know, matters of good taste and things like that, that leads to them kind of raising the temperature in Adelaide and sort of pushing the boundaries of acceptability and challenging these systems in a way that over the seven year period, it gets to the point where when they get tied up in this case of ribbit, Max Stuart, and this royal commission, which is formed the crux of this book, and when they’re the libel trial, where the paper and Roland ribbit, the editor will on trial, that’s really the culmination of a lot of tensions that have been simmering and getting more tense over over a seven year period where it all comes, comes to bear.

Gene Tunny  25:38

Could you tell us a bit about that? Walter, what was the libel? What was the libel that it was about?

Walter Marsh  25:44

Yeah, so in in 19, December 1958. in Sedona, which is a town on the far west coast of South Australia, it’s a coastal town, a nine year old white girl, called Mary all of Hatton disappeared, she was later found murdered. And within a couple of days, the police arrested 2627 year old Aaron demand called Rupert next to it. Within a few hours of them arresting him, they emerged with this time confession in the early hours of the morning. And he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. And the judge at the first trial basically said the all this other evidence they’ve got doesn’t really amount to much. It’s basically this confession or nothing. At the trial. Stuart and his lawyer said that the police choked him and beat the confession out of him. He was illiterate, didn’t speak particularly good English as well. He was signed, he signed the confession, which was typed by the police. But those to his name was the only thing he knew how to read or write really. And so there were appeals and appeals, nothing really worked. There was this growing community campaign, there were academics who became convinced that he was, you know, if not innocent, had certainly been wrongly convicted. Eventually, a Catholic priest called Tom Dixon goes to sort of attend to Stuart, in his cell, because he, you know, he’s facing death. And he, he speaks errand this priest does, because he’s worked in remote communities. And he becomes convinced that Stuart not only doesn’t really know anything about the day of the crime or the events, but doesn’t speak English in the way he doesn’t speak English competently enough that he would have been able to dictate this confession, which is very precise language, lays out how the crime, how he committed it, how he did so in a way that matched all the evidence that the police had put together. And so that kind of lit a fire under the campaign again, and people became convinced that he physically couldn’t have done this, given this confession, which the police at trial had sworn was verbatim. Anyway, so Dixon is introduced to Ron ribbit, this, the editor of the news, and he agrees to get behind the campaign and pay for Dixon to fly to Queensland to try and track down an alibi. But Stuart he does successfully. And then it just becomes this huge press campaign. Virtually, it’s reported all around the world and the Playford government facing this extraordinary pressure that they hadn’t in 20 years because they’ve enjoyed such a unchallenged power, eventually decided to hold a Royal Commission. And then it’s at the Royal Commission where this lawyer who’s come in to represent Stuart, he is questioning the police officer who first identified Stuart as a potential suspect. And he gets interrupted by one of the Royal commissioners who also happens to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in South Australia, who had previously heard one of Stewart’s appeals. So there was a lot of in a very, very Adelaide, sort of incestuous With tensions right away. And this idea of he wasn’t getting a fair go. So the lawyer, he walked out, essentially, and flew back to Sydney. And it was the news. The news is reportage of this event. It was perfectly time for the afternoon papers. And they basically said they sort of paraphrased quoted him on the front page and of these news posters saying, you won’t give Stuart a fair go these commissioners can’t do the job. And it was this coverage that incensed the state government because they weren’t just criticising the commissioners, but this was the chief justice as well, because Playford the premier has installed the chief justice as the Commissioner. So it’s a real challenge to the legitimacy of the entire judicial system in South Australia and the plaque the premier Tom Playford stood up in Parliament and waved these headlines and said it was the gravest libel ever levelled judge in South Australia. And so the Royal Commission eventually wraps up the verdict is upheld, but he his life sentence is commuted his death sentence sorry is committed to life so the campaign has managed to save Stewart’s liked one way or another. But then a few months after that at the start of 1960, some police officers and this is where I start the book off with the scene, some police officers walk into US Women’s headquarters to interview round rivet and later Rupert sort of interrogate them about these these headlines. And then within a couple of months, the report is basically the whole of these limited in the organisation they run is put on the witness stand and really forensic ly pulled apart by Crown lawyers as they face these charges of libel, including seditious libel, which is sort of the headline charge, which is basically just bringing the state of South Australia into kind of disrepute, I suppose. And that was the really finding that that case, the Stuart case has been talked about a lot. There are three books that go into it in quite a lot of detail. There’s a movie made about it, but it was this libel trial afterwards, and what the libel trial tells us about how Rupert ran his company, at that point, the relationships and his role in this coverage that’s very kind of not sensationalist. But it definitely was provocative. They got them in a lot of trouble. That was, that was the kind of the climax of what I thought hadn’t really been looked at in the book before. And sort of in this, you know, writing it today, with the backdrop of, you know, the libel cases against crikey and dominion, and all this stuff, and the Sedition is a big word with January 6, and all that it just felt like a much different set of stakes, a totally different era, but felt like it resonated a lot with the era that we’re living through now at the end of Rupert’s, if not life, sort of his tenure in the news. So, yeah, I really dig into that a lot.

Gene Tunny  31:50

Yeah, that’s fascinating. And so Murdoch, he successfully defended himself against that libel, is that correct?

Walter Marsh  31:58

Yeah. So it was it was the company News Limited. And Ron Roman, the editor that were on trial, so not Rupert himself. But the as the trial progresses, it basically becomes clear that Rupert had written at least two, I think of the headlines that had gotten them in hot water. And in addition to that, there was an editorial that was published a week or so afterwards, when it became clear that, you know, the play for government was absolutely outraged by the coverage. And it was kind of trying to, I guess, calm the farm a little bit and set the record straight. But that this editorial was held up by the by the prosecution as admission of guilt, essentially, by the newspaper, by admitting that those headlines were not quite accurate and shouldn’t have been printed. And it’s revealed that Rupert wrote that headline himself. So it shows a lot about the kind of proprietor he is and how he’s, you know, never too far away from the action, but it’s particularly in relation to the more modern day cases that are happening where he’s kind of recognised that they, you know, pushed the Fox News, sort of Trumpian base a bit too far, is a sign that even Rupert sometimes recognised as when the company has gone a little bit too far and and flying too close to the sun.

Gene Tunny  33:20

Yes, exactly. Well, he had to sack Tucker Carlson, the noted commentator over there, which is one example of

Walter Marsh  33:28

an event and revenge gets sacked shortly after the final charges are dropped. So it’s, everything kind of comes to a head. And that’s a good way to bookend the book and wrong.

Gene Tunny  33:41

Yeah, it’s fascinating, because it sounds like he was probably on the right side in that on that issue. And yeah, years later, I mean, Murdoch would obviously come under intense criticism. And there have been some massive scandals that we don’t need to go into here. But what happened with News, News of the World and the UK and the phone hacking, just absolutely appalling stuff.

Walter Marsh  34:02

I mean, it’s all kind of sorry, it’s all it’s all very speculative when I’m just looking at this early period. But I do think that I found it very telling that in this period, where he is kind of the good guy challenging systems that were overdue for a challenge and these elite establishments that were kind of begging to be shaken up and undermined. And that’s kind of siege mentality. And, you know, he’s not the little guy by any means, because he’s still the inheritor of a newspaper company and the son of the press Baron that set up this whole empire, but it kind of shows what I’ve been discovered. This is sort of foundational contradictions that we see, you know, his his resignation letter, the other week, you know, he still tried to rail against the elite and collaborate and eliteserien co cahoots with the media whose you know, sacrifice truth for political agendas. I think it was in thing and it’s just that the cognitive dissonance on display when he talks about that kind of thing as the billionaire head of a hugely influential Empire that’s had a huge influence on politics. You know, how do you make sense of that, and then seeing it in the context of what he’s been fighting and fighting since day one. And when, you know, the variables were so different when he started, but this kind of dynamic have always been the inside or outside of sticking it to these establishments, kind of set the groundwork for everything that came afterwards.

Gene Tunny  35:27

Yeah, well, he’s no longer on the News Corp is no longer in its ascendancy, if that’s the right word. Because it’s been really battered by the internet and all social media, YouTube, etc. So it’s, it is struggling with Sky News, Australia seems to do it seems to do okay on YouTube. And I mean, there still is a, there’s a dedicated audience of some people out there for sky, but I know elsewhere around the world and the papers here, I mean, the Courier Mail in Queensland’s lead off a lot of people over the years, and they’re just not the force that they once were.

Walter Marsh  36:00

Well, even things like YouTube, like how Yes, Sky has found this huge, sort of secondary, you know, in Australia, it’s on pay TV, or it’s being beamed into airports or country TV free to air. But on YouTube, they found this quite lucrative secondary market where they put some insane videos, some rant on YouTube, and there’s gets 1000s and 1000s of views from America within minutes. And it just made me think that a lot of the things that I explored in this book in the 1950s, the media landscape today, and the one that I’ve navigated in my professional life, is in so many ways unrecognisable from the one Rupert inherited, you know, in, in Rupert’s days, you know, as a building, full of hundreds and hundreds of men and women and just hours and hours of labour. And it was a huge physical process to put together the news each day that everyone read, you know, on trains all at once in two distinct waves, completely. And today, it’s completely different in so many ways. But then at the same time, I kept being reminded that a lot of these arguments and questions that are being explored in that period, things like Monopoly, and ownership and the truth and sensationalism. They’re the same questions, the medium is completely different, the society looks a lot different, but they’re still the same questions. And to bring it back to what I was talking about with YouTube, and how that these algorithms, these online algorithms kind of favour content that provokes a strong reaction that kind of fuels conflict, and instead of moderation and sort of nuance, it’s in a lot of ways, it’s very similar to after the newspapers, because, you know, they had to, had to sell to sell papers, they had to put together headlines and stories that caught the eye and sort of captured the emotional feeling of just random communities passing by, that could be held out by newsboys on the corner, if they weren’t doing that they weren’t selling papers, and the company fell over. So is that these mediums, the mediums are totally different. But there again, and again, we see that they’re kind of structurally predisposed to things like sensationalism, which Yeah, is kind of defies the time period.

Gene Tunny  38:15

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. And I think that’s a that’s a good point. I mean, he learned, I mean, Murdoch. I mean, he obviously cut his teeth in Adelaide, he, he learned a lot about what works in media, and then he managed to scale that up globally. So I think that’s and the other point about Adelaide, which I liked that you made in the book, is that in Adelaide, did he learn the importance of political influence, he learned that the, the people at the advertiser, they were politically connected, if I’m remembering this correctly, and he just learned how important that was. And then he called, he learned to cultivate politicians. And we saw that, you know, famously over the years, and he for a while he was making and breaking government’s Gough Whitlam in, in Australia. He backed him then he didn’t back in and then that was played some role. It wasn’t obviously the decisive factor, but it did play a role. So yeah, incredible. I just found I found that really interesting. I can see how his experience in Adelaide taught him that lesson.

Walter Marsh  39:15

Because he was kind of, even though he had this privileged upbringing in you know, I was raised, lived and breathed newspapers growing up the son of his father who was understood the power of influence in politics. But when he stopped when Rupert started out, he had Yeah, this six or seven year period when he was an outsider, and even though he was doing a lot to challenge the establishment, he also was finding really experiencing the limits of what you could achieve by just throwing rocks from the outside and I think yeah, by 1960 when we kind of leave Rupert it’s very clear that he you know, when he’s been hauled to court and you know, as editors sent him into custody and threatened with jail time is discovered the upper limits have that kind of approach and takes a different path?

Gene Tunny  40:04

Yeah, indeed. Okay, so just two quick questions for the just at the end. Because when you mentioned those a movie about the Stuart case, I wanted to know what that movie was. And then second, if your book is optioned, which it may well be given, it tells a it’s a riveting rollicking tale as Jenny hocking has described it, who do you think could play young Rupert in a Netflix series or a movie? You thought about that?

Walter Marsh  40:37

I haven’t know. But it’s a good question. I haven’t I should say I haven’t thought of anyone off the top of my head. It’s kind of a bit of a backhanded compliment. I think for any very young actors. We I think you could perfectly embody young Rupert Murdoch. But the movie is called black and white. It was made in I think, 2001 I think it’s on Netflix. It kind of comes in and out of the streaming services, but the young Rupert plays a small role in that story, and he’s actually played by a young Ben Mendelsohn. So maybe they can get Ben Ben back to play. Stick Keith Murdock.

Gene Tunny  41:17

Yeah, absolutely. I’m gonna have to watch that. That sounds fascinating. Okay, Walter Mosh well done and well done on the book. I hope it sells well. And I’m sure you’ll be getting lots of media in the future on Rupert Murdoch, his legacy. I mean, he’s still alive. He’s still chairman emeritus of News Corp. And I expect they will. Lachlan Murdoch. I mean, you’ll have a tough time, but I expect they’ll still be important in the media landscape for at least the next decade or so. If you have any final thoughts on that on the legacy where they’re going? Please let me know. Otherwise, you’re happier to wrap up.

Walter Marsh  41:57

Yeah, I mean, the one thing that, that reading that letter, and I mentioned this in a column I did for the guardian. But reading Rupert’s resignation letter did make me think of another resignation letter I’ve found in my research from his father, Keith Murdoch from 1949, where he was having some health issues. And he’d been sort of compelled in late 1949, to announce that he was handing over the day to day running of the Herald weekly times as managing director to his successor, Jack Willett, John Jack Williams, and Keith Hill to remain chairman. But clearly, this was intended as a kind of changing of the guard, you know, getting into semi retirement. Within the next three years, I was going through all these letters were keep spend all that time, you know, coming into the office whenever he could, just white anting Williams eroding his influence, asking all these questions at meetings. And then finally, the last six months, he’s incredible letters where, you know, he’s back and forth with executives that are on his side, about this disintegration across the company. And finally, 24 hours before Keith dies, he launches this, I guess, boardroom purge, where he gets gets Williams turfed out of the company and sort of reassert his control over the company in this really defined way. And then dies within 24 hours, which, you know, in the context of Rupert and whether or not he can really, you know, sit the out of office and go and relax while Lachlan takes over. I feel like the whole 70 year arc has been about control and the whole company being built around his decision making. So I think that that will you know, that would be a tough one to relinquish. But then interestingly, and this is just a little fun tidbit for you. But I was it was fascinating to read about in the aftermath of Keith’s death when they when the call came in, obviously, Williams went straight back into the office and got someone to drill open, keep safe, and they found all these papers which kind of expose his sort of all these tactics he had to build up Rupert’s inheritance. So by the time kids funeral had come around, on Thursday of that week before Robert had even gotten back to the country, the minutes had been the decision to get rid of Williams had been scrubbed from the minutes. He’d been reinstated, and he ended up one of the pallbearers for Keith, just a few less than a week after keep that down, tipped him out of the company. So it’s hard to relinquish control when you’re a Murdoch is my take home.

Gene Tunny  44:26

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Okay. Well, Tomas, thanks so much for your time. I really enjoyed the conversation.

Walter Marsh  44:32

Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Gene Tunny  44:35

rato thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about The Show. Finally, if your podcasting outlets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week

45:22

thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this where to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Private vs public sector jobs, consulting scandals & economics as an ‘imperialist discipline’ w/ UQPPES – EP209

Show host Gene Tunny speaks with students from the University of Queensland Politics, Philosophy and Economics Society. They discuss topics such as private versus public sector jobs, the future of consulting, and the risks of outsourcing for government officials. Gene takes an historical perspective and goes back to the time of convict transportation to Australia. He also talks about, among other things, his time working in Treasury during the Rudd Government, and how psychology is relevant to economics. The students express concerns about the consulting sector in light of a recent scandal involving PwC partners misusing confidential government information.

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

What’s covered in EP209

  • Economics career paths and differences between public service and consulting. (3:04)
  • Consulting industry challenges and scandals. (15:39)
  • Outsourcing in government and potential mitigation of risks. (17:50)
  • Greedflation. (28:30)
  • Limits of economics as a discipline. (33:59)
  • Public vs private sector work experiences. (38:22)
  • Government consulting and ethics. (43:48)

Links relevant to the conversation

About UQPPES:

https://uqppes.com.au/about-us/

On how badly designed outsourcing of convict transportation created the ‘death fleet’, see:

https://www.themandarin.com.au/73989-contracts-and-convicts-how-perverse-incentives-created-the-death-fleet/

Transcript: Private vs public sector jobs, consulting scandals & economics as an ‘imperialist discipline’ w/ UQPPES – EP209

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny  00:03

I mean, I think economics is an incredibly powerful tool where it gets difficult is trying to predict behaviour and, and in in cases where people don’t act fully rationally, and that’s what you need to bring the psychology in. Right. So, I think any idea that economics is the imperialist discipline and we’ve got all the answers, I think that was destroyed by the financial crisis. Welcome to the economics explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host, Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. If you’ve listened to my recent episode on degrowth, you would have heard a little bit of the recent event that I spoke at. The event was hosted by the University of Queensland PPE society where PPE stands for politics, philosophy and economics. This episode features the rest of the conversation that I had with the students. We talked about private versus public sector jobs, the future of consulting and the risks that government officials need to watch out for and outsourcing. In the conversation I picked up there many of the students appear especially concerned about the future of the consulting sector, which is a major employer of graduates. The context is that we’ve had this big scandal in Australia over some PwC partners allegedly misusing confidential information they received from the government. They allegedly used it for private gain. As you’ll hear the students were super interested in the differences between working in the private and public sector, and which was the better option for economics students, I gave the best advice that I could on this question among many others. As with many questions, there’s no easy answer. It says good things and bad things about private and public sector jobs. And a lot will depend on people’s individual preferences and personalities. As you’ll hear, I think that the public sector provides a better training ground for young economists. The work environment and training opportunities are generally much better. But there are challenges in the public sector. As the higher up you get, the more you get exposed to the political side of government, which brings new challenges. That said, there are some people who thrive on that. So it depends on just what you’re looking for. If you have your own thoughts on working in the private versus the public sector, or any of the other issues that we talked about this episode, then please reach out and share your thoughts. My contact details are in the show notes. Okay, let’s get into the episode. I hope you enjoy it.

Joe  03:04

Welcome, everybody. Thank you very much for coming. My name is Joseph. I’ll be your emcee for this evening. And I’d like to say a very, very warm welcome to esteemed economist gene Tunny. He is here with us tonight. He’s the Director of Adult economics, and a 1997 CIS liberty and society alumnus. He is a former Australian Treasury official, and has worked on a range of domestic and international consulting projects. So we’re very lucky to have someone with such expertise. Joining us tonight to answer some of our questions about economics. So I guess to start off with Jean, could you maybe tell us a little bit more about yourself about the work you’ve done and how you maybe came to work in consulting?

Gene Tunny  03:50

Yeah, so I’m an economist, done a broad range of things are taught at this university in the past. So in this very room, subjects such as cost benefit analysis, there’s probably macroeconomic policy that I taught in 2015 in this room here. So I’ve got a background in macro policy budget policy when I was in the Treasury in Canberra, so worked on a lot of issues there, industry policy issues to do with the car industry, the budget debt, so we had to borrow a lot of money again, during the financial crisis. So I was heavily involved in that. And yeah, around probably around 2009, I started thinking I’d be good to for a bit of a change. And a friend of mine, Tony, Hans, was heading Mars and Jacob up here, the consulting office, and he was doing a lot of good stuff, cost benefit studies of all the new water infrastructure we needed because we’re in a drought. And I thought I’d be great to come back to Queensland I think it might have been a wedding that was up at nursery or went up to a wedding, a friend’s wedding. And you know how magical nurseries and the reception was at sales and a probably had a couple of glasses of champagne and thought, what on earth? Why would I want to go back to Canberra when you’re on the beach here and beautiful? That was partly why I wanted to come, I came back. So I worked here at uni, I worked in state government, as a public servant do different analytical roles, workers compensation, industrial relations, then treasury. And since 2009, I’ve been doing consulting since 2014, my own firm and yeah, work for a huge different range of clients, agribusiness companies, some government agencies, industry bodies, major corporations, ANZ Bank, for example, say all sorts of clients,

Joe  05:39

you know, you said in, you know, you were thinking of wanting for a bit of a change up coming back up here and working in consulting what, because for us, consulting and public service are too so the main employment pathways, could you maybe give us some sort of insights into the differences between the two, the, you know, the positive sides of both, and perhaps some, some negative sides or things you didn’t like, as much from either?

Gene Tunny  06:06

Yeah, so the public service is a good training grounds, and there are a lot of a lot of opportunities. They look up to you. So I think if you’re beginning in particular, you’re studying PPE, places like treasury, productivity commission, Reserve Bank, de fat, foreign affairs, and trade, I think they’re excellent places to go to learn about the issues and potentially get training opportunities or international postings that they can be really great opportunities. And public sector. Yeah, it’s different. I mean, the different The obvious difference is that, in one, there’s a mission that set by the government of the day and there’s a, you know, there’s a bureaucratic national, you’ve got to achieve some tasks. So that could be improving the health of the population, running the health system, or the education system, educating people, or could be Treasury where it’s this broad concept of well being, and you’re overseeing a whole range of agencies, you got to make sure that the budget is in good shape. So that’s, that’s a bit more of a, like, every agency has got a different mission. And that’s, that’s what determines that. In the private sector. It’s about profit. So profit. I mean, that’s, that’s what Yep, you need to make money to be able to keep the operation going. So there’s a clear goal, and that ends up driving a lot of things and forcing efficiency. So when I think one of the challenges in the public sector is because you don’t have that, there’s not that focus on profit, things can become a little bit inefficient. Yeah, there’s not the same sort of laser focus on, on doing things efficiently. And going after profitable opportunities. Your mission is set by politicians. And that can be problematic, because sometimes they can change their mind. Sometimes the politicians, I mean, maybe some of the things that they that they’re aiming for aren’t necessarily sensible. But yeah, as a public servant, you do have to try and achieve the objectives of the government of the day. To me, those would be the major differences. But if you want to explore that any more feel free either. Because because I’m not sure about answer that question very well. But that’s just what occurred to me. And with the private sector, I mean, you’ve got like, I work for a whole range of clients. And it can be a different project, like one day, it can be looking at lb farms. So there’s a client of mine, who’s built a big lb farm out at Dundee windy, and he’s trying to extract Omega three rich oil from the the algae. So now he can make some money out of that. And so I’ve helped him get a grant from the state government to do the r&d. And that’s fascinating. But then another day, I might be looking at parcels and issues to do with freight transport. So there are a whole range of things that you study, whereas if you’re in a public service agency, one of the risks is you could what you want to avoid is staying in the one spot and just doing the day to day because there is a lot of day to day responding to emails or letters from the public and writing Minister replies writing speeches, writing question time briefs, you want to get into an area where you you’re not. You’re not doing that day to day public service stuff, but there are a lot of good places like treasuries, terrific. Reserve Bank, doing rigorous analysis trying to inform the monetary policy decision that that’d be a great place. Yeah.

Joe  09:32

Super interesting. Yeah. I mean, I would never have even sort of imagined that consulting firm would be working out in Gander windy.

Gene Tunny  09:40

Oh, well, I mean, I mean, in Queensland, Australia is huge in agriculture, okay. And you’d be blown away if you if you go out there and just see how advanced a lot of these operations are. Here. There’s a lot of work for consultants. I mean, economists are probably I mean, we would have only a very small part of the work I mean, this has worked for Engineers is work for agronomist experts in agriculture. Yeah, there’s all sorts of all sorts of work and in a lot of things are automated. Yeah, they’re increasingly used. I think they’re even using AI now to work out, you know, optimal irrigation and optimal spraying of pesticides and things like that. Yeah, right. Yeah.

Joe  10:21

Very cool. That’s a good point. I think that you said that, you know, economist consultants would be doing a small part of it. And I guess, for your firm, or just for consultants, in general, as you say that the jump between lots of very different projects from different clients? How do you sort of go about preparing for a new client or, you know, perhaps in an area that is not necessarily somebody that you’ve worked before, but still have to deliver services or help your your client in some way? Well, you’ve

Gene Tunny  10:54

got to be a quick study, you have to get across the issues as best you can. And it’s like, if you’re doing an assignment at uni, you want to start early, you want to get all the resources, do the reading, learn as much as you can ask questions. So I mean, when you’re doing consulting projects, the the client is they’re motivated to help you to assist and to provide all the information they can see, it’s about being a detective or a journalist, and asking questions, to get all the information you need. But you do have to be a quick study. Ultimately, the, the Principles of Economics are the same. And I guess you learn a process of gathering the information, you sort of get an idea of what they might have on hand, what you might, sometimes you might need someone else to help out, you might need an engineer to come in and, and help work out how to solve a particular problem like in, in on their farm or in their factory, and they might have an estimate of what that will cost. You might need an architect or a quantity surveyor to do lifecycle cost estimates for a building that you’re doing a cost benefit analysis on. So there are the experts that you might have to bring in. But yeah, you need to have a, you need to plan you need to think think with the end in mind, begin with the end in mind, which is one of the seven habits that Stephen Covey talks about, it’s so true, you got to think about what’s the ultimate thing I need? And where am I now? What needs to happen to get there, you got to figure out the most efficient route to get there. So a lot of problem solving.

Joe  12:26

Yeah. And that’s, I think, a really big, exciting thing about economics and about, like studying policy and things like that is that a lot of it is problem solving? Would you have any advice for any students studying economics, or PPE, or any sort of related discipline in sort of getting into the consulting world, post

Gene Tunny  12:46

graduation, I mean, I wouldn’t get into consulting unless you are super passionate about it. Or, I mean, there are some good places that are working to death. I mean, if you get a, if you get a really good GPA, I don’t know what you need to get now that if you can get into some or like McKinsey, or BCG or aubaine, they’re really good training grounds for getting into C suite or, or getting into a, you know, really top job. So I think if you if you could get into one of those coming out as a grad, that’d be great. Other places where signing, you’re probably better off going, you want somewhere that will give you I mean, it sounds silly. It sounds terrible. What’s the word I’m trying to think of the word, but you want something that looks good on your CV, right. And so you want something that is recognisable, and that’s why Treasury or productivity commission or RBA works so well. So I’d be applying for somewhere like that and get good training and, and learn how to and what’s good about those biases is that they have high standards, and they teach you how to write well and communicate. And I think that’s very important. And they can also give you international opportunities. So one of the things that I that blew me away when I went into treasury was just all the international opportunities there. You work on issues with OECD or G 20, or IMF, World Bank, and Treasury people get postings all over the place. Beijing, Tokyo, London, Jakarta, Washington, DC. So that’s, yeah, that’s, that’s a good way to get a national experience and D fat too, of course. But that’s what I’d be doing. I’d be trying to get into, you know, as you probably all know, this, you got to work hard, study hard, try and do extracurricular things that will impress people have a reasonably good interview performance. And yeah, that’s, that’s all I can recommend is just work hard. You’re probably doing all that already.

Joe  14:39

Some of us maybe not awesome. Thanks for the advice. Like it’s really helpful, especially from someone who’s working in the industry. Yeah.

Gene Tunny  14:49

I mean, why I’d say that I mean, I mean, I enjoy consulting but I always see it as something that I’ve sort of fallen into. I mean, it’s good for me because it allows me to do a lot of interesting things and work with different people. And you know, potentially develop a business and grow the business. So what you ultimately want to do is specialise create products. So that’s the path I’m on now. So you probably don’t want to be doing lots of different things. I mean, I’ve been opportunistic, I’ve been trying to, you know, get the contracts in. And to do that I need to work on a lot of different things. Because partly, it’s because I’ve got a wide range of experience. So I’ve dabbled in different areas, and I can do those for a wide range of things. But ultimately, I’d like to sort of niche down and develop products that, that provide that recurrent revenue, that’s what you ultimately want, I think. And I think consulting can be difficult when you’re at the beginning, I wouldn’t say the bottom. But you know, the Finder mind their grinder model? Have you heard of that? But they talk about it, like Deloitte and PwC. The big four? Well, the finders, the partners, they’re the ones who have the connections, they’ll have, they’ll know the CEOs, they’ll go cycling with him, or they’ll play golf with them. And the CEO will ring them up, and can you do this analysis for us? Can you crunch the numbers for us on this project, and then there’ll be no partner or go, Okay, that’s great. Well brought that in the Finder, they don’t want to do the work, they just want to go to the, you know, the soirees, they just want to do the networking, and bringing the projects ever mind who’s a senior person, and not necessarily that senior, just there a few years or five, five or 10 years, they’re the managers. And so they’ll manage the projects being done. And the people who are doing the projects are the grinders. And today, the analysts, and that’s where the grades come in. And they could just work ridiculous hours. And partly because it’s a tournament because everyone wants to get up to the next level and prove themselves. And to get into one of those firms, you have to be really good generally. And so you’ve got young, ambitious people, they’re all competing against each other. But it can be very difficult that people work ridiculous hours. So that’s why I wouldn’t necessarily recommend consulting to start off with you better coming in later on when you’ve got some experience. So you can come in as a manager, or you could come in or you can do freelance on your own or set up your own business. I think it’s much more enjoyable then.

Joe  17:16

And then you get to work on your golf skills as well.

Gene Tunny  17:20

Yeah, although cycling, I know, golf used to be the big thing. I think it’s more cycling now. Yeah, yeah.

Joe  17:27

Awesome. Well, I guess speaking about the Big Four, as someone who’s working in the consultancy industry at the moment, what’s your take on the ongoing scandals that have been happening involving PWC and other consulting firms at the moment? Do you think this may be raises questions or concerns about the efficacy of outsourcing public policy?

Gene Tunny  17:50

Oh, look, I think there’s always been concerns about the efficacy of outsourcing. And if you look at the history of contracting out, I forget which fleet it was, but was it the Third Fleet, there was one of some of the convicts ships are all put out to tender right by the by HM Treasury, or the Admiralty in in the UK, and the Admiralty or the the Treasury they want, they want the most people to get out, they want people to come to Australia, they don’t want to people to die on the ship. Right? They actually want people to survive the voyage. But the ship owners, the ones who are who when the contract, they want to fulfil the contract to just to the letter so they can get the payment from the Treasury. But they don’t really care much about the people who were the people survive unless you make that explicit in the contract. So and there was a scandal with one of the convict ships, if I remember correctly, I can look it up, and we can put it in the show notes. So yeah, there’s always been issues with government contracting, there’s always been concerns. And so I’m a great believer in outsourcing, because I think it does save money. But you’ve got to do it for specific things for specific jobs that you can keep a close eye on and where you trust the people to deliver those jobs. So I think the problem with PwC is you have too much trust was placed in people that they shouldn’t replace that trustee and given the incentives on their end their ability to make money out of it. Right. And so the, arguably the people in the government should have seen that as a risk and pay closer attention to it. At the same time, what the partners in PwC did, what they allegedly did for the lawyers appears unethical. And you know, just just terrible. I mean, I’d like to think that if I was in the same situation, I wouldn’t do the same thing because I’ve been on the I’ve been on the other side of that in the treasury, in government. And I know just, yeah, there are opportunities all the time to profit off information that the government has, and I don’t know if you’re aware There’s an insider trading scandal with the lad who was working in ABS and he had a maid in Melbourne, and he was leaking the inflation data to him. So yeah, you’ve guessed that’s the problem in the public sector, you’ve got to there’s what I’m trying to say is there’s information in the public sector has is valuable. If you’re giving outsiders access to that, you’re going to make sure that there’s controls on it, you keep an eye on it, at the same time, what the PwC partners allegedly did was unethical, really bad form. Will it stop outsourcing? No, because there’s a lot of benefits to it. There’s a lot of expertise out there, that people who can help government from time to time they’ll take on things that are really big, and they need the outside advice and the outside labour outside assistance. So I think we’ll still need it. But there are lessons. And but that’s outside, as I was saying those lessons, we’ve been learning them for 200 years, and we keep forgetting them.

Joe  20:56

Do you think I remember reading a few months ago, there was quite a bit of talk about this new in house consulting section of the Department of Premier Prime Minister and Cabinet that they were bringing in? Do you think that that might be sort of a potential solution to that sort of issue, or

Gene Tunny  21:14

I think it will, it’s worth trying, I just don’t know how well it will perform partly because of the role of the profit motive in motivating consultants. So consultants to get jobs done, because they know that if they don’t get the job done, the client won’t pay the money. And then that looks bad for them. And if they’re, if they’re the actual proprietor or if their partner, then their compensation is gonna directly depend on that. And even if they’re, they’re an employee, then that can affect their progression, or they could even get the sack if they really stuffed something up super badly. There’s a lot of incentive to get the job done and get it done efficiently work weekends work long hours. I mean, there are some times I’ve stayed up till God, yeah, I’ve done at least one or two all nighters. Some people will do multiple all nighters to get jobs done, but you will really push yourself. Is there the same incentive? And in that government body? I don’t know. And, and I don’t know to what extent they’re going to be constrained by the the APS pay structure, and to what extent bonuses can be paid. So I think that’ll be the test of that. Look, it’s worth trying out. Yeah, I’m a bit sceptical about whether it’ll work or not. Yeah, that you got to make sure you get the best people in there. And if I was in government, I’m not sure I’d want to go to that team. I’d probably rather be in PMC or Treasury if I was federal, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So the idea that it was in PMS? Yes. I think it’s supposed to be a subsection of, of the PMC, portfolio or whatever. But yeah, you’d want to, I’d be concerned, if I was in the public service, I’d want to be in one of the core areas where I was working on the really juicy policy issues. And yeah, where you got the potential to advise the ministers, often directly, some will sometimes directly up at Parliament House, that’s that they’re the really interesting things to do. Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  23:16

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  23:46

Now back to the show.

Joe  23:51

I guess another sort of perspective that I was thinking about is having independent public institutions like the Productivity Commission, for example, or the RBA, that you mentioned before, that are not necessarily beholden to a particular department, but still part of the public service. How do you see the role for those sorts of institutions evolving?

Gene Tunny  24:15

Yeah, I think they’re terrific. I think that’s, that’s a good idea. I think the PC has done a lot of good stuff. But we’ll have to see how it goes under the new commission head. So Danielle wood, who’s an old friend of mine, we’ll see how it goes. And I think she should be she should be great. She might have a different focus, she might be more focused on social policy issues than than some of the previous Productivity Commission heads. But yeah, I think Productivity Commission is a great idea a lot depends on the terms of reference. It’s given by the government though. So it can be it can be effective if the government uses it right. But a lot depends on what the government gets us to do. Yeah. The other one that’s interesting is the parliamentary Budget Office, which is really good. So I’m not too familiar with that. So that’s That’s in, that’s based in the parliament itself on the hill, rather than in a public service agency. And what it is, is it’s an independent costing agency, and it estimates the cost of policies. So if you’re from the opposition or the grains, or your tail, you can go to the parliamentary budget office and say, Hey, I’ve got this policy idea. Can you produce a costing for us and tell us, you know, what, what do you think this would cost? And so that, that provides a service to the whole parliament. And it provides a service to the public, because we’re not just relying upon the Treasury, which works for the government of the day. And potentially, I mean, I’d like to think they wouldn’t be influenced by the government the day but there’s that perception that maybe they’re not independent? Well, they’d certainly not independent, but maybe they’re not. Yeah, there’s a perception that they could be influenced to extent by the government. So therefore, it is good to have something like parliamentary budget office. And it’s really, it’d be a really good place to work. They’ve got an amazing data set, they’ve got a 20% extract of the ATO is taxation data, right. So all data on all the taxpayers out there, the the PBO has got a 20% extract of that, and that helps them work out, you know, the impacts of policies is pretty impressive.

Joe  26:25

Yeah, very interesting. I’m surprised that it doesn’t come up more as sort of a, an option.

Gene Tunny  26:30

Yeah, it’s either that I think it’s a textbook tax, the tax database, or the census that’s linked to the tax database, I’ll have to, might look that up as well. But it’s impressive data set that they’ve got. And that enables them to do really detailed, precise estimates of the cost of policies, because there’s policy at the Commonwealth level is so complex, because of all of the rules around social security payments, superannuation and taxation. It’s everything so complicated. And so therefore, you need really fine, detailed data to be able to cause some of these policies.

Joe  27:06

Yes. super interesting. And I guess really, like sort of a dream for an economist or quantitative economist to have access to all that data? Yeah, yeah. Well, I

Gene Tunny  27:15

guess I mean, that’s one of the things that’s really changed. And just the the amount of data that is available now. All these big longitudinal or panel data sets, blade, the business longitudinal data set Hildur, household incomes, Labour dynamics, Australia. And you can do all really neat statistical methods with them lots of good econometrics. So if you’re into econometrics, and yet see if you can get somewhere like PbO, or there are some think tanks that are really good like Grattan Institute, or II 61, you would have heard of those places. So yeah, I’d, I’d highly recommend either of those. II 61, the research director, there is an old UK boy, Dan Andrews, who worked at Treasury OECD, he’s good value,

Joe  28:00

no relation to the Victorian

Gene Tunny  28:06

though he’s not a dictator, that’s a good guy. Wasn’t a political COVID.

Joe  28:20

Also, thank you for that sort of tour of the landscape of policy and consulting that was super interesting and hopefully informative for all of us going out there into the world. Moving sort of to another topic, I guess, there’s been obviously over the last year or so inflation has been one of the main policy points or issues, pretty much any sort of discussion about the economy is related to inflation. And a lot of there’s been a lot of media coverage talking about wage growth, particularly over the last six months and and how that might be contributing to inflation or might potentially contribute to inflation. So we have a question here asking, is it misleading for the media to highlight wage growth as a contributor to inflation? Given that, in Australia, we are experiencing negative real wage growth at the moment?

Gene Tunny  29:18

I don’t know to what extent the media has been blaming wages, I mean, that what we’ve seen is that the central banks that reserve bank is concerned about this concept of a wage price spiral that if wages take off, then that’ll feed into prices, and that’ll force up wages again. Now, we haven’t really seen that yet. Okay, so look, some of those concerns may be misplaced. There’s a bit of a debate about that. At the moment. The Australia Institute’s got a lot of press, arguing that it’s all because of greedy corporations. This greed inflation. I’m a bit sceptical of that I’m not sure whether to what extent corporations are any more greedy than they were previously and whether the markets more concentrated than it has been in the past. So I’m sceptical about about that story too. But essentially, we had, it’s the classic story of too much money chasing too few goods, right? We had this big COVID stimulus, additional hundreds of billions of dollars more in bank accounts, and, therefore, extra money, not enough supply prices a bit up the whole wage price spiral thing that central banks have been worried about. Yeah, that that actually hasn’t happened. So maybe you could say it’s misleading, but I’m not sure that’s been I think that’s been what some of the economists and central bank governors have been talking about. I don’t know, to what extent the media have been blaming them or talking about that. I think, if anything, it’s that great inflation story that that’s been dominant. Yeah, I think there’s problems with that, too. I mean, essentially, it’s just prices have been rising, because there’s been a lot more money, and there’s been the shortages and your businesses have, yeah, they’ve put up their prices. And that’s helped them, you know, that’s encouraged them to expand, supply where they can. Yeah,

Joe  31:08

I agree that it definitely has sort of picked up pace in the media over the last few months, this idea of, and often you see it linked to earnings calls or record profit margins. Oh, yeah. Do you think that profit margins should sort of receive more scrutiny from economists as a sort of concept, especially when we’re thinking about inflation?

Gene Tunny  31:32

Well, I guess, what you’re seeing is you’re seeing a correlation, right? Because we’ve had, we did have a very, very strong rebound, after the pandemic, okay, when we came out of lockdown. And so you’re going to expect high profits, okay, because the economy was really performing strong, it’s slowing down. Now, as we all know, and we’ve got this per capita recession that they’re talking about. So yeah, it was natural that profits would increase, because we had such strong economic conditions, that’s just the business cycle. And at the same time, we had inflation because we had all of this extra money chasing only so many goods that could be produced profits, I mean, we do want companies to be profitable, I think you should be looking at what’s causing the profits, if there is market power, or if there is concentration, if they’re abusing it, then we should be looking at that. And that’s what the a triple sees. Therefore, now you could argue that may be the a triple C isn’t as effective as it should be the a triple C’s, it’s looked at groceries in the past, it’s looked at all sorts of sectors in the past, and now we’ve got a competition policy review. And I think it’s looking at the airlines, that’s where we should get. So maybe there is a case for there’s possibly some restriction of competition, or in the airline sector, maybe weak that could be more competitive, it’s a lot better than it used to be when it was super regulated back in the 80s. And it was really expensive to fly around. But no one be jetting around to different cities, it was a certain it was very expensive. It’s because we deregulated it back in the 80s. And we allowed in a lot more competition. Now, this is why this whole issue of the Qatar decision not letting them in on those international routes. That’s why that’s become so politically difficult for this government, because that was something that could have helped reduce the cost of flights, particularly to Europe. And so so you could argue cornices was getting some protection from the government. And so we shouldn’t be thinking about what are their barriers? Are there? Is there a problem with an issue with the market structure? Is there too much oligopoly or monopolistic power? And are there levers that the government can can use to stop that? In cases where it’s where they’re clearly doing something anti competitive? Can we prosecute them under the age of the consumer and competition policy? I can remember the exact name off the top of my head. But yeah, we should. It’s definitely something we should be concerned about. And it is something that, that economists do study. Yeah.

Joe  33:59

Awesome. Thank you for that. Yeah. I mean, as a personal anecdote, I remember I wanted to catch a flight to Europe a little while ago, and I had to go fly with cuantas to first before I could even get a Qatar flight and it was so much better, that I’m going from Perth, Qatar Airways. I will. I think they’re really good. So yeah, it was an interesting decision. We’ve got another question here. Again, sort of taking another step. Russ Roberts, who is the host of econ talk a podcast. He refers to economics as an imperialistic discipline. This idea that, you know, being like, you know, economists often try to apply economics and economic thinking too broadly, to domains where the assumptions may no longer hold and its utility is questionable. I guess, someone that might come to mind is someone like Gary Becker, you know, bringing the idea of economics and supply and demand to the family and areas that typically it hadn’t been applied to before. And for you personally, what do you think the limits are of economics as a discipline? And are there things that economics can’t explain? And we might need other sort of perspectives to understand?

Gene Tunny  35:15

I think certainly, I mean, even economics requires other perspectives. So I think economics is an incredibly powerful tool. And, you know, it’s a science of the economy and studying the economy there. There’s some core economics, you need to know, where it gets difficult is trying to predict behaviour and, and in in cases where people don’t act fully rationally. And that’s what you need to bring the psychology and right. So I think any idea that a court economics is the imperialist discipline, and we’ve got all the answers, I think, that was destroyed by the financial crisis. I mean, maybe up until 2008, people could have believed that. But after 2008, I think there was a recognition that, okay, we haven’t really solved the business cycle, we thought we’ve solved the business cycle as this Great Moderation. markets aren’t always rational, you can’t, there are periods of irrationality in economics is not going to help you there. That’s where you need psychology to bring psychology. And that’s why behavioural economics is trying to bring in psychology with economics. So yeah, I think there are clearly limits to economics. And one of the one of the important limits or considerations, is that economics to the extent Well, if it’s, you could say it’s a science or it’s a study a field of study, it can answer questions of fact, or we can make predictions. Or we could argue, analyse what might be the most efficient course of action from a the perspective of consumers consumer welfare, from economic welfare, broadly construed. What we can’t necessarily answer is what’s the best thing to do for society? Because then you’ve got ethical issues, value judgments, how do we look if something is affecting the environment, for example, and that affects future generations? How do we, how do we analyse that, that those can be difficult issues? Or how do we make choices regarding health policy measures? So it’s not always they’re not always issues where economic considerations are the final determinant, you may need to bring in value judgments? Yeah, the whole distinction that thing was David Hume between isn’t board? Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Could

Joe  37:34

all Hume who I guess himself was sort of an economist when he talked about Yeah, money and things like that? Yeah. Well,

Gene Tunny  37:42

anyway, he wrote a famous essay on the gold standard on price, the seaflo mechanism? I think it was, yeah, yeah. I

Joe  37:50

think the argument was that, yeah, it doesn’t matter if you if you have the money supply, and prices have as well, like, every, the welfare of everyone is the same, essentially, I think I only remember that because Polanyi then talked about it. Yeah. He was a pride our economist. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. So that’s all the pre prepared questions that we’ve got. I’m gonna go over to the lectern mic, and then we’ll be handing the handheld around to the members of the audience, if they want to ask gene any questions.

38:21

Just going back, I guess, to your discussion about public and private. And I guess, us as university students entering into the workforce, I just wrote a question down. So as university students, we are involved in Dubai, developing a variety of skills that, I guess were not explicitly taught in university, but that we hope to apply when we get into the workforce, from your experience, or what schools have surprised you from the recent generation of you know, incoming university graduates, and what do you think, you know, is missing from you know, they’re the skills that they’ve developed that they might not have been taught explicitly? Throughout University?

Gene Tunny  39:00

Okay. What’s most surprised me is just how savvy or how brilliant uni students are at producing PowerPoints, like slide deck, Oculus nowadays, we’re all competing in these case study competitions. I’ve been blown away. So yeah, that’s really impressive. Otherwise, yeah, just, I guess maybe I’ve been lucky. But yeah, I found the slide decks. The students type employed generally have good presentation skills, very good at research, good at getting across data and information. I think the skills you need to learn, like everyone needs to learn them, it’s it’s about writing as clearly as you can. Being proactive. It’s hard once you get out of uni because uni, you’ve got the targets to hit, you know, when the you’ve got to lodge your, your papers or when the exam is on, you got to turn up to it. It’s more structured work can be a bit unstructured at times. And so you got to, you’ve got to learn how to manage yourself, manage others get others to help you out a lot of those interpersonal skills, it’s just about building those up, you’ve probably been developed in developing them here at UNI. Anyway, that’s what I, I’d say, the I’ve been really impressed with UQ students in particular.

40:18

G’day, Gene, thanks for the talk. And for your time, I just want to go back to, again, back when you were talking about the distinctions between working in public and private sectors you mentioned as a downside, or a potential downside of working in the public sector was perhaps changing ministries disagreement with, I guess, the government of the day and, you know, a general sense of inefficiency about projects that you’re doing as a possibility. Did you find that your experience in the private sector was a bit more alleviated of those concerns? Or did you also have times where you disagreed with the direction of your projects,

Gene Tunny  40:54

I guess, you’ve got choices in the private sector. So you could actually refuse to do a job. But then you want to try and do a job if you can, if the client is going to pay you, that you have so many clients, you can move on and you can you can sack clients in a way and go okay, I’m not working with you again, if there if, if you didn’t enjoy it, or if it was just hard work. So that’s, that’s what I was getting out there. Whereas with, with government, if the government’s in for several years, and like, I think you’ve got to work for the government of the day, this isn’t a matter of politics. I’ve worked for both labour and coalition governments. And, and I don’t think the quality of the work, I actually think it’s more related to the people in charge at top, I think it relates a lot to their personal characteristics rather than their politics. So I don’t think there’s any correlation between the political strife of government and how good it is to work for, but yeah, you’ve got to be you’ve got to be flexible and realise, I mean, some people enjoy it. I can be challenging. Yes, Minister might be too old. But there was a show for two years, you know, yes, Minister, from the 70s and 80s with Nigel Hawthorne, and, and Jim Hakka. Do you remember he played Chewbacca, too? Anyway, it was a great show. But there’s a line in it where Bernard who was the principal Private Secretary to the Minister was talking to Humphrey says, I don’t understand why the minister wants to do this. How do we how do you cope with all of these changes in in policy direction and sound free says look, if I actually cared about what the policy direction the government was, I’d be stark raving mad because one minute, I’d be pro nationalism, nationalising steel, I’d be then Pro D nationalising steel, and then I’d be pro renationalising steel, because those things change. You’ve got to be flexible in government, that maybe that’s not for everyone. And politicians, I think can be difficult too. Because, you know, working for the government is can be challenging, because there’s a lot of media, there’s a lot of light on the government, and there are a lot of crises. And you can be called in at odd hours, particularly, like, the craziest time in Australian politics in the last 20 years was the Rudd Government. And I mean, it was just completely different from the previous government. But you know, a lot to his credit. I mean, Kevin Rudd wanted to do things, he he saw urgency, he had a great sense of urgency, he was an incredible hard worker himself. But that meant that there were requests coming in at odd hours, he’d he’d be flying back from a meeting a DC, he’d be there for the first time g 20. Meeting, and then he is playing with land in Hawaii. And then we get a call that the wants a paper on. So it’s such it’s such an issue by the time he lands in, in Canberra. And so this is might be on a Sunday or something. So it can be a bit crazy. But that’s what you get, if you want to be in that sort of environment, because there’s that political aspect to working in government. Some people really enjoy that they thrive on it. Others find that find it difficult. So yeah, that’s just Yeah, who knows? I mean, my experience could be a bit idiosyncratic. So that’s one thing to bear in mind to

44:09

sort of on that with the PwC scandal, they ended up selling all of their public sector work company, do you there’s been talk about whether all the big four companies are gonna end up having to do that. Do you think that that will happen and also just sort of see that as a good path forward

Gene Tunny  44:27

in terms of preventing corruption or in front of the think? Yeah, I think I mean, PwC has been forced to do it. The other firms, I think, would rather not do it. I’m trying to remember if v y looked at it and try remember where EY was trying to split its audit from its the rest of its business. And I don’t think it went ahead. I’ll have to look at the details of that. There are probably other ways to stop that, that conflict. I don’t know if that’s going to happen with the other firms, or not close enough to the people in those firms too. Uh, to make that judgement, but yeah, I don’t know to what extent it would look, if you got a job at one of those big four firms, then, you know, that’s, that’s going to be good, it’ll be good experience, even still at PwC is probably still good experience, despite the scandal, they’ll bounce back, they’ve got so many connections, they had a good reputation for a while, I’m sure they’ll be able to turn around eventually. Now, I’d have to wonder, like, as if you want to do consulting work, I’m not sure whether you’d want to go to a company just focused on public sector work. Because then why not just go into the public sector itself, if you like, if public sector is your thing, I’d go into government itself, because one of the things with consulting, I enjoy it, because I actually get to do a wide variety of things. I found personally, I found government difficult because I’m reasonably opinionated. And like, I wasn’t the Sir Humphrey cat character who could been just changed, not not care about the political, you know, the actual policy direction or, yeah, I thought I’d find that very difficult to do. So I actually quite enjoy being on my own or having freedom to, to write to comment. Whereas you can’t do that in government, you can’t say anything critical of the government. It’s difficult. There are advantages, because you can then get involved in, you know, in the policymaking and the decision making. You can work with the minister’s office, even the ministers. But if that’s what you want to do, you’re more likely to get that to do that in the public service, than if you did a public sector, in a public sector consulting organisation that consults to the to the government just depends on what you’re after.

46:43

This is kind of flowing on from that question a bit. Do you see any other consequences coming out of the PwC? Scandal? And I guess now, the KPMG scandal with defence contracts, I think, that kind of flow onto other consulting firms outside of the big fall? Or do you think that I guess, kind of trust in interpersonal relationships that might already exist? Kind of, I guess, being more important than that? Maybe?

Gene Tunny  47:09

Yeah, I think government public servants will be more conscious of the risks. And it may be harder as a consultant to work for, to work for government clients, because they may not automatically trust you. It may be harder to get access to information, you may have to sign more documents. It can be difficult, it’s difficult already working for the government agency. So projects I’ve done, Nicholas grown and I and another colleague did a job for services in Australia recently, looking at my gov and looking at the the investment in that and the benefits of of improving the Margao functionality. And I mean, we had to sign all’s we had to sign those documents that said we wouldn’t share this information. Of course, we wouldn’t. And you know, then PwC, they I think they probably their person who allegedly breached the trust signed documents to and they should have, they should have taken it seriously. And it looks like they didn’t. But what Services Australia did was they wouldn’t let us take documents away. We could only see some documents physically, in a Services Australia offers, because they’re highly confidential information relevant to the budget process. So they had the right controls in place. I think you’ll see more of that there. There’ll be less trusting. I think they’ll still be consulting opportunities. I think I think that they need the expertise from outside so much. They’re not going to cut back on that. But it’ll be more difficult. There’ll be more constraints in terms of access to information, they won’t automatically trust you. But I think they’ll still be, they’ll still be jobs that consolidate if you want to do that. Yeah.

Joe  48:44

Awesome. Well, if there’s no more questions, we just want to say thank you so much gene for coming along. And we’d like to offer you this gift. This is the statecraft which is our PPE society, student magazine. So lots of different articles from all sorts of students. Yeah, so thank you so much for coming and sharing your knowledge with us. It’s been really great and really appreciate you and hope to see you again in the future.

Gene Tunny  49:15

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

50:02

Thank you for listening we hope you enjoyed the episode for more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Growth or Degrowth? w/ Oliver Hartwich, NZ Initiative – EP208

Show host Gene Tunny delves into the concept of Degrowth: the idea of deliberately shrinking economies to avoid the runaway climate change, ecological collapse, and societal breakdown that degrowth proponents are worried about. Gene first discusses degrowth with Oliver Hartwich from the New Zealand Initiative, and then responds to questions about degrowth at a recent University of Queensland Politics, Philosophy, and Economics student event. 

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

About this episode’s guest: Dr Oliver Hartwich, NZ Initiative

Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative. Before joining the Initiative, he was a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, the Chief Economist at Policy Exchange in London, and an advisor in the UK House of Lords. Oliver holds a Master’s degree in Economics and Business administration and a PhD in Law from Bochum University in Germany.

What’s covered in EP208

  • [00:04:39] Degrowth to stop climate change? 
  • [00:08:00] Economic growth and adaptation to climate change? 
  • [00:11:53] How a threatened lungfish colony stopped a new dam in South East Queensland. 
  • [00:15:47] Are we rich enough already? 
  • [00:20:20] Democratization of wealth and prosperity. 
  • [00:24:05] Economic growth as a positive. 
  • [00:30:39] Carbon pricing. 
  • [00:34:10] Decreasing Antarctic sea ice extent.

Links relevant to the conversation

Gene’s September 2023 Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) paper on Degrowth:

https://www.cis.org.au/publication/debunking-degrowth/

NZ Initiative podcast from which part 1 of this episode was borrowed:

https://www.nzinitiative.org.nz/reports-and-media/podcasts/podcast-debunking-degrowth/

Transcript: Growth or Degrowth? w/ Oliver Hartwich, NZ Initiative – EP208

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Oliver Hartwich  00:03

William Stanley Jevons in the 1860s actually predicted the word would run out of coal. This is general tendency to do linear thinking where everything is always continuing on a certain path. I mean, there was a letter right I believe, in the London Times in the early 20th century, predicting that London at some stage would be under six feet of bossman year from all the offices in the city. It is this tendency to always think we’re just continuing on the same path and it will never change.

Gene Tunny  00:41

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host, Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode. Please check out the show notes for relevant information now on to the show. To grow or not to grow, or indeed to D grow. That is the question. Do we need to rapidly shrink our economies to avoid runaway climate change, ecological collapse and societal breakdown? This episode features on my recent conversations on degrowth I speak with Oliver Hartwich from the New Zealand initiative. And thanks to Oliver for letting me reuse the recording from the New Zealand initiative podcasts that are recorded with him. This episode also includes a response that I gave to a question from Joe Christiansen at a recent event hosted by the University of Queensland politics, philosophy and economics society. Okay, let’s get into the episode. I hope you enjoy it. After you Listen, please reach out and let me know your own views on whether we should pursue D growth or not.

Oliver Hartwich  02:07

Hello, and welcome to the New Zealand initiatives podcast. My name is Oliver Hartwich, and today we are joined by our special guests from Australia we have gene Tunny, who is an adjunct Fellow at the Centre for independent studies, and also a director of ADAPT economics consultancy in Brisbane. Welcome to the podcast Gene.

Gene Tunny  02:24

Hello, Oliver, pleasure to be here.

Oliver Hartwich  02:26

Great to have you with us because we want to talk about a paper you just published last week with a centre for independent studies called debunking degrowth. Now, I thought we should start this conversation by just admitting freely that we are both economists. So degrowth is something that doesn’t come naturally to us usually, because normal economic theory, correct me if I’m wrong is all about trying to find better ways of combining factors to do more with less or to do more with the same, to find different combinations to create growth, to really find out what works and make an economy grow. And now suddenly, we’ve got a bunch of scholars turning this on its head telling us to actually try to not create so much wealth and not create so much prosperity, but really put the reverse gear in and go in the other direction. Is that a fair summary of what this movement is about?

Gene Tunny  03:16

Yes. I mean, they certainly want us to go in the other direction. I mean, the two steel man, their argument, I think, how I describe it is that they think we’re breaching these planetary constraints. So they think that we’re at a level of consumption, whereby we are essentially, you know, we’re sacrificing the well being of our children or grandchildren. So they’re concerned that we’re, we’re going to destroy the planet, some of this degrowth literature is it’s apocalyptic. It’s, I mean, I think it’s catastrophizing. But you know, they, they’re worried about climate change. They’re worried about ecological breakdown. They’re worried about resources being exhausted. So yeah, look, I largely agree with you, but to to steal man their argument, they think there’s evidence to support the view that we’re consuming too much if we want to have you know, sustainable living standards for future generations.

Oliver Hartwich  04:18

Right. And in your paper, you then produce a reproduce their claims, and you’re debunking them one after the other. And you’ve got five claims in your paper. So I thought what we might do so much is go through the list, and try to figure out what this movement wants and your response towards so the first unproven claim you talk about in your paper is one that you already alluded to. We need to de grow to stop climate change. Why do they say that and why do you think this is wrong?

Gene Tunny  04:46

Oh, well, essentially they’re they think that we’re on these tipping points. I mean, you’d know that it appears that the planet is warming I mean, there’s scientific support for for co2 We were warming the atmosphere to an extent. So that’s difficult to contest. But they claim that they believe these real these tipping points sort of scenarios. Whereby, I mean, the permafrost melts. There’s all this methane release, you know, we have the, what is it one of those ocean currents that shuts down? And I mean, all sorts of apocalyptic scenarios. And I mean, just looking at it. I mean, I think that the evidence for that is, I mean, a lot of it comes out of computer modelling, there are all these computer simulations, whereby if you look at what they’re doing a lot of the conclusions, the apocalyptic conclusions are essentially assumed or built into the model. So I mean, my feeling is that the evidence isn’t, isn’t strong enough to justify that apocalyptic thinking. Sure, there’s some warming going on. But there are policy measures been introduced to try to address that, or, I mean, none of the credible modelling on climate change mitigation has degrowth. in it. I mean, we can still grow, we’ll still be wealthier in per capita terms. Maybe the growth rates less or more if we respond to climate change. I mean, now we’ve got people saying that if we don’t address climate change, we’ll have lower growth. So look, I think they’re making big claims about how we’re going to, you know, have this unsustainable runaway global warming if we don’t do something radical and massively cut back our consumption. So that’s essentially their argument. And I just don’t think the evidence supports that.

Oliver Hartwich  06:43

But of course beyond that, because we’ve already decoupled economic growth to a degree from emissions. Yeah. So just because you’re growing doesn’t mean you’re necessarily growing your emissions.

Gene Tunny  06:53

Yeah, yeah, exactly. And I think they’re ignoring a lot of the technological change. They’re, they’re ignoring our capacity for innovation. Yeah, that’s absolutely correct. So I guess not to not to necessarily defend them, but they do address that decoupling argument. And they do acknowledge that that, you know, the emissions intensity of GDP is declining. But in their view, I mean, we’re still increasing co2 emissions, or sorry, we’re still, you know, the co2 in the atmosphere is still growing. So they’re a bit sceptical of that whole decoupling argument.

Oliver Hartwich  07:31

There’s another aspect to the whole climate change debate. And that’s adaptation, of course. So I mean, if we’re comparing countries like the Netherlands and Bangladesh, Bangladesh is subject to flooding, but so is the Netherlands because they are mainly under normal sea levels. And yet, the Dutch build dikes and all sorts of infrastructure to deal with that, because they could afford it. And then Bangladesh, and they’re still waiting for that to happen. So actually, isn’t actually economic growth, the thing that saved the Netherlands from flooding

Gene Tunny  07:58

out? Yeah, look, that’s, that’s a good point. I mean, you wouldn’t want to de grow and stop emerging economies from getting wealthier, because that will decrease their capacity to actually adapt to deal with it. I absolutely agree with you there. And look, that’s one of the things that the degrowth movement misses in my view. I mean, there’s all of this, you know, it’s a lot of the standard sort of criticism of, of capitalism and, and economists that you get from people on the left, and yeah, I mean, it ignores the fact that I mean, since countries such as China and India embrace the market, right, China in the 80s, and things are paying and then we had the, the end of the licence, Raj and in India, I mean, they’ve they’ve had, you know, much better growth than previously and we’ve had over a billion people lifted out of poverty. So yeah, absolutely agree with you there, Oliver.

Oliver Hartwich  08:52

Okay, then let’s move on to your second unproven claim, we need to de grow to stop resource depletion, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. That leads us straight into the debate around Julian Simon, or if we want to go back a little bit further. Thomas Malthus. Yeah, absolutely.

Gene Tunny  09:08

And I think history shows that I mean, we are able to address these issues. And a lot of the concerns came best addressed through the market through clear delineation of property rights. A lot of the problems we have in Brazil, for example, that there was a recent economist article I’ve mentioned in the, in the paper, which is essentially saying a lot of the problem with the rainforest, destruction of the rainforest is lawlessness, it’s bad enforcement. Right. And look, you know, there are efforts all around the world to, to conserve to the off the common Exactly, exactly. So it’s really just, yeah, they just seem to ignore that. You know, what economists know about the people who own a resource are going to, you know, protect it and conservator. So yeah, absolutely. And look, I mean, look, you have to acknowledge that there has been a loss of biodiversity over over decades. And I mean, I think we’re starting to address that we’re starting to arrest that decline. And certainly the so I’ve got a there’s some evidence there about the decline in biomass globally or number of animals. And, you know, that’s, that’s been arrested that decline, which, which is good. So look, I think, you know, it’s a lot of just negativity, and isn’t capitalism awful. Whereas, really, I mean, we can address these issues, they’re within our ability to control and look, just look what we’re doing in Australia. I mean, we’re a wealthy country. So we, and this goes to your point before all over that the wealthier countries are going to be better able to address these issues. I mean, we’ve got things like biodiversity offsets. Anytime you want to do a development that impacts the environment, you have to prove about how you manage those impacts. And we’ve even stopped, we stopped the dam in southeast Queensland, even though we need the water. Right, it’s good. We’ve got a hugely growing population. And we stopped a dam because we were concerned about a lungfish. So yeah, I mean, we are trying to address these issues. And I think, yeah, that that argument really doesn’t, doesn’t hold up. And the other point too, as you know, as an adopt a dam over length, yep. Travis didn’t dam. That sounds like an episode straight out of utopia. Well, it happened. It was Peter Garrett, who was environment minister here. So um, yeah, it was a huge issue, because we had a water crisis in the 2000s here in southeast Queensland. And so we built a desalination plant, which is hugely expensive. We built a recycled water plant. And then we were looking at a dam north of Brisbane in the Murray Valley, the travesty and dam and it got right to the point where the federal government had got to the federal approvals process and it was blocked by the environment minister, Peter Garrett, former lead singer of Midnight Oil. Yes, I have this man. He was the environment minister. It’s a burning blocked it because the lungfish was threatened. So yeah, apparently there was no way of, of looking after the lungfish if you built the dam. So yeah, that’s that’s just an example of how we do care about the environment in this country. It’s not as if we’re sacrificing the environment for growth.

Oliver Hartwich  12:31

The other idea of course, in all of us resource depletion seems to be one of these ideas that you simply cannot ever refute, keeps coming back. Going back to Morpheus, of course, that’s the starting point. But William Stanley Jevons in the 1860s actually predicted the world would run out of coal. It’s this general tendency to linear thinking where everything is always continuing on a certain path. I mean, there was a letter right, I believe, in the London Times in the early 20th century, predicting that London at some stage would be under six feet of horse manure from all the horses in the city, it is this tendency to always think we’re just continuing on the same path, and it will never change.

Gene Tunny  13:11

Yeah, exactly. So and the thing with the scarcity of resources, I mean, we know that as they do become scarcer, the price is going to increase. And that’s going to encourage conservation, or it’s going to encourage people to switch to two alternatives. So and you mentioned, you alluded to the Julian Simon Paul Ehrlich bet, which ended up losing because he thought we were in the 70s, they thought we were on a path to, you know, massive resource scarcity. And that

Oliver Hartwich  13:41

perhaps, just for the benefit of listeners who may not be aware of that, so can you tell us briefly what this bench was about?

Gene Tunny  13:49

It was about prices of commodities, they selected, maybe a couple of dozen commodities, major commodities. And Ehrlich was betting that that increase in price over the the 80s by a certain percentage, amount across extreme people would run. Exactly because there was all of that modelling in the world. Ehrlich was infamous for that population bomb book in the late 60s, which forecast that you know, would, you know, even with, like, what was it 888 billion people which where we are now we’d end up with, you know, massive famines and the chaos and all of this. And

Oliver Hartwich  14:27

then we’ve got the Club of Rome, of growth and all of our

Gene Tunny  14:30

forests and meadows, and there was all of this apocalyptic thinking, you know, Doomsday was at hand. So I think what I found interesting looking at this old degrowth literature, is a lot of the a lot of the concerns or a lot of their arguments could could be questioned or rebutted, if you go back to just what sensible people like Robert Solow and then the Treasury here in Australia, what they were saying in response to the club Right, right. Yeah. So

Oliver Hartwich  15:03

we make made a very similar point in one of our publications. A few years ago, we had a little booklet published under the title The Case for economic growth. And we were talking about environmental Kuznets curve, where, first of all, when the economy grows, yet there is an impact on the environment, and it might be negative. But once you get past a certain point, people will demand action and clean it all up. Yeah. And actually, it gets better over time.

Gene Tunny  15:26

Yeah. And that’s one of the points that I made in the paper. Yeah, absolutely.

Oliver Hartwich  15:31

Your third point, your third unproven claim is perhaps even more interesting. We are rich enough already? Well, it would be harder to make that claim in New Zealand, because we’re 25% behind Australia. What’s the thinking behind that?

Gene Tunny  15:47

Oh, well, they make the argument that if you look at happiness, Carl, you know, correlations of happiness and GDP per capita beyond a certain level, it starts to flatten out. And so the argument is that countries such as Australia, and I mean, maybe New Zealand doesn’t qualify yet, but we’re wealthy enough already got a way to go. It’s all about you know, it’s it’s an issue of inequality. So there’s this sort of argument that I look, the West is rich enough already. It’s if you concern about the rest of the world, and it’s, you should redistribute that income. And you know, the people in the West were the ones who, of course, we’ve caused all the problems with climate change, et cetera, it’s all our fault, imperialism, and all of that. And so that we should redistribute our income and wealth, the problem is, that’s only going to go so far. Right? It’s not going to solve the problem. And it’s not good for, you know, incentives. Right. It’s not good for it’s not sustainable. So it’s just a really bad argument, I think. And, and it also, I mean, when you look at it, this, this is going to require authoritarian measures to introduce because at the moment here in Australia, we’re going to cost a living crisis, right? So you’re not going to be able to tell people, and we’ve got no shortage of housing, you’re not gonna be able to tell people, you’re rich enough already. Because a lot of people who don’t know when I’m What are you talking about this nonsense? You’d have to engage in really authoritarian measures to bring about D growth. So yeah, I think it’s a really bad argument of the D growth people.

Oliver Hartwich  17:20

Exactly. Right. I think there is another point actually, that we should consider. Sometimes it’s not so much the absolute wealth that you hold. It’s the direction of travel. So I’ve actually seen some really happy people and countries that are not that rich yet, but they’re travelling in the right direction, whereas you can be in a richer country that’s kind of stagnating, declining, and feel really miserable about it. So actually, people want to have hope they want to see that the future is better. And then it almost doesn’t matter from which starting point you come in just the direction of travel that actually determines how happy you are.

Gene Tunny  17:51

Yeah, that’s a good point. I mean, the the example of a country that was rich and started declining, everyone was miserable. It’s probably Britain in the 1970s. So yeah, I think that’s a that’s a good point. Yeah.

Oliver Hartwich  18:03

unproven claim number four, we need to de grow to reduce inequality. What about well,

Gene Tunny  18:11

yep, I mean, I guess this is this is related to that previous point. So and this is part of their whole critique of capitalism that capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor, poor? And look, I think that’s a really silly argument. And there’s not a lot of evidence for that. And, and if you look at just the huge gains we’ve had in living standards in emerging countries, emerging economies over the last 30 years, since we’ve opened up to the market, and it’s just extraordinary, over a billion people taken out of out of poverty, there are a few stats that I use, or that the World Bank’s produce, which shows that I think, around 1990, it might have been 70% of the world was living on $6 us a day or something like that. So not the diarist poverty of $2 a day, but And now that’s under 50%. Right. So if you look at the numbers living on $2 a day, then you have, you know, a big decline there, too. So we’ve got huge gains, so that in relative terms the world is becoming more equal, but we are seeing in some countries that, you know, there is an increase in inequality, particularly in the United States. But I think you don’t want to then conclude that our the market systems terrible isn’t, because a look I mean, that’s associated with new technology. I mean, we’ve gone through a period of, of huge technological disruption and I mean, America, America is the leader in that and so therefore, the people who are responsible for that are doing doing very well. And look, you probably you’re better off having a more productive a wealthier economy. And you know, having In the pie bigger and then sure you can then have a debate about the, the shares of that pie. But you want to have the biggest pie possible, I’d say,

Oliver Hartwich  20:09

because in the end, what capitalism and what economic growth? Does it actually share us? The wealth with more people, it’s the democratisation of luxury, if you like. Yeah, I remember actually speaking as an event, and quite a few years ago, under the headline, people with flat screen TVs should stop whinging about capitalism. One of the arguments I made was actually, if you teleport at someone who was really, really rich a few 100 years ago, so you take the Sun King Louis Catorze, and you kind of get do rica tours and visit 21st century Australia or New Zealand? What would Luca tours be really impressed about? Well, that you could switch on the light with a switch, or that you could read your newspaper from a foreign country on your phone, or that you could just call someone in a distant city. But I think what he would really be surprised about was that this was available not just to his modern day equivalent, but to everybody. And so we have actually completely democratised wealth and prosperity to a degree that we had never seen it before in the history of humankind. No, absolutely.

Gene Tunny  21:13

I mean, indoor plumbing is one of the great innovations and better sanitation. I mean, the world today is clearly much better, even even if you’re a king and seventh eighth 13th centuries, and yes, you’d much rather live today I’d say yeah.

Oliver Hartwich  21:30

Yeah. Even if you’re not a king. Which then leads us to the combination of all these unproven claims. Number five, we need to de grow to avoid economic and social collapse. So listening to you, it seems obvious, it is the opposite. If we want to avoid social and economic collapse, we need to grow.

Gene Tunny  21:50

Yeah, well, this is part of that whole, apocalyptic or catastrophic line of thinking. And you know, that there was that study a few years ago by she was a consultant. And she wrote this, I should have I’ve got the I’ve got the reference in the in the report, but she reproduced the the meadows analysis, or the the Limits to Growth analysis from the 1970s. And she’s saying, Oh, if you look at the data, we’re on track for societal economic and societal collapse, which is what the limits to growth model was predicted. So she had an update to limits of growth. Harrington is a surname. But I mean, it just, it’s part of this, you know, catastrophizing, when you look at these models, and this is a point that solo made back in the 70s, when he just tore apart the, the whole Limits to Growth analysis in his great challenge article he wrote is the is the end of the world at hand that are referenced in the paper. And I mean, they just build in the fact that we’re going to hit some point of no return, and then everything’s just going to collapse. So there’s a in their simulations, they have eventually population industrial output, reach some peak and then just collapse. But it’s just built into the model that programme that into it. And you can’t say that because we’re or maybe some variables are tracking with what the model forecast, you can’t then conclude, oh, here, well, then we’re gonna hit this peak, and then we’re going to suddenly collapse because there’s no evidence that that’s going to happen. And any person who does forecasting knows that these tipping points, these turning points are the most difficult things to actually forecast. So yeah, it’s just, again, it’s just catastrophizing.

Oliver Hartwich  23:42

Absolutely. So, in conclusion, you have saved conventional economics, you have actually demonstrated that what economists have been telling us all along is basically Correct. Actually, economic growth is a positive. And by finding better ways of combining economic factors of production, we are improving prosperity, we are making societies return that’s a good thing.

Gene Tunny  24:05

Look, yeah, I largely agree with that, Oliver. And what I would say is that, just as we degrowth, like targeting negative growth would be silly, or not, when I’m not necessarily advocating that we target a specific rate of economic growth, because ultimately, that’s going to be the product of, of the market of people making. Yeah, and I don’t want to be, I’m not saying that look, unfettered capitalism is what we want. I mean, we need some regulations, we, you know, there are some market failures we may need to address but what I’m saying is that, you know, this whole degrowth thing is rather silly and, and there’s no evidence to suggest that we can’t continue to grow and really, I mean, growth is a solution to a lot of problems. So particularly if you’ve got a shortage of housing, you know, if we want to lift living standards in emerging economies, where they’re still much lower than, than here in Australia and New Zealand,

Oliver Hartwich  24:58

and of course for the last few years we’ve had a movement, trying to make the case that actually it’s not about growth. It’s not about conventional economic measures, it should be something bit fuzzier, something like a well being budget. That’s what we pay on it here in New Zealand. And I think your minister of finance or whatever he’s called an Australian federal, Jim Sharma has has bought completely into that narrative. And, you know, also on to wellbeing budgets, but that’s not really compatible with and with a growth mind or growth. Focus.

Gene Tunny  25:27

Yeah, I mean, that’s, that’s a separate thing. I mean, I don’t necessarily have a problem with looking at a broader range of indicators than than GDP per capita, but you just don’t, I mean, look at a lot of that. The well being or to

Oliver Hartwich  25:42

me, it always sounded as if they were trying to find an excuse for not having to deliver GDP per capita increases. And so they’re looking for something fire and quality well being. Yeah,

Gene Tunny  25:51

quite possibly. And, yeah, I mean, it’s another thing that the treasurer couldn’t launch and, you know, makes them look like they care about different concerns of the community. So look, yeah, I think it’s a bit, you know, a bit of a waste of time, the whole well being budget, because, yeah, a bit of a distraction. But yeah, take your point. Maybe that is what they’re trying to do that it’s a, it’s a cover for not actually achieving a decent rate of economic growth.

Oliver Hartwich  26:19

Well, that could be a topic for your next paper. And if you’re looking for materials, you’ll find them all in New Zealand. Very good. Okay. Sounds good. But, but for now, can I just thank you for sharing your thoughts with us on the podcast. And just for all our listeners, genes paper is called debunking degrowth, you can find it on the Centre for Independent Studies website in Australia sets ci s.org.au. But for now, thank you, gene for being our guest. And good luck for your future papers, we look forward to seeing them.

Gene Tunny  26:50

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  26:55

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with adept economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice, we can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world, you can get in touch via our website, www dot adapt economics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  27:24

Now back to the show.

Joe  27:29

You mentioned the environment there and sort of political movements and value judgments obviously very, very important. For everyone alive, yeah. But especially with the sort of younger generation. And one idea that is sort of gained popularity in recent years has been this idea of D growth as a way to sort of solve the ongoing climate crisis. And you wrote an article, I think recently, the Centre for independent studies about about D growth. And you said that any attempt will like to sort of implement this idea that we need to have negative growth will greatly reduce the living standards and cause significant unemployment. We have a question here that says, if it is as severe as predictions suggest, then is not some form of dramatic economic structural change necessary to prevent continued pollution, mass production, carbon emissions, environmental degradation. So yeah, it seems that either this change will be voluntary, in that we will decide to do it, whether that be D growth or some other sort of economic restructuring, or it will be forced by the nature of the crisis in that our economic system will collapse?

Gene Tunny  28:46

Well, I hope that’s not the case. You talk about prediction. So well, this is where it’s difficult. Like this is a very difficult area to actually talk about, because there’s so much complexity going on there. And in terms of predictions, there are projects, some predictions that have catastrophe of permafrost melting all this methane being released to the atmosphere, this Supercharged global warming, ocean currents shutting down in Arctic melting. And I mean, horrible scenarios. Now, that’s not generally what we think is going to happen. I mean, that suppose look, there’s anything really could happen, right? I mean, I’m not a climate modeller or an expert on climate change. But if you look at what the IPCC has been, what it’s been modelling or projecting what our own governments have been doing, they do show that there is a path to get into net zero by 2050. There will be warming of one and a half to two degrees, probably two degrees Celsius on average. There seems to be an acceptance that by many that, okay, that that’s something we can adapt to it’s there will be a First consequences of that, but it’s not going to be catastrophic or lead to that Armageddon scenario. Now look, the question, if that is the case, if it is the case that we are in that situation where the worst predictions do come to come, you know that they do occur, then we will have to do something radical, it won’t be a matter of trying to get that change gradually over time. And the idea of having a carbon price is to send that signal to the market to, in an efficient way, reduce your emissions, invest in new technology to get to net zero. So that’s what the policy’s been now, governments are finding it very difficult to do that. Okay. So we’ve got an implicit carbon price in Australia, we’ve got these Australian carbon credit units, we’re going to market for that. We’ve got a safeguard mechanism, which is going to be requiring big emitters to reduce emissions. And so we’ve got an implicit carbon price. But you could, you know, there’s arguments about what that should be, are we are we doing it fast enough, there’s the how many we’re gonna have to keep coal going coal fired power stations going for a lot longer than we expect. We wanted to because we’re worried about the reliability of the energy grid. Unless we can get the hydropower stations on on schedule. And then that’s pretty difficult to see what’s happening with snowy 2.0. They’ve had one of the tunnel boring machines stuck. So it’s, it’s a big challenge. Now, I don’t know if you saw what Rishi Sunak has done in the UK, they’re delaying their transition to net zero. So Boris Johnson had committed to stopping the sales of petrol powered vehicles by 2030. Rishi Sunak, push that back to 2035. And there are a few other things to do with I think, gas in the home. So I think the push push that back when I have to stop having guests in the home, because these policies are they’re challenging to implement, or politically, they’re difficult. And as we we really need American leadership, we need China, America and China, the EU and Japan. They’re the major economies we need them to come up with a binding global agreement. And we go along with that. Yeah, it’s, it’s a big challenge. So we’ll get my opinion there. And I’m, I’ve got to admit, I’m not an expert on the climate. So for what for what it’s worth, my opinion is those predictions. There’s apocalyptic predictions, I like to think of them as catastrophizing. We’ve had predictions of doomsday for as long as I’ve been alive. And before then Malthus were Club of Rome. I mean, this is the latest. And in that sort of line of thinking, I’d like to think that there though, those horror stories, I mean, look, if that if we if it does come to be that that is the situation, we will have to change very rapidly. And that will require very strong measures. And it may be that yeah, there is a big hit to GDP. But at the moment I my sort of judgement, the judgement of I think practically all the people in governments around the world is that that’s not the situation we’re in. Could they be wrong? It’s very possible that I sit? I hope not. But look, I admit there, there are certainly concerning signs out there. I mean, and, you know, I’m a lot older than than you are. So you’d have to live with it more than I will. So maybe that’s something to that. I know that I understand why young people are concerned about it, for sure.

Joe  33:24

Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. Thank you. For that perspective, we have John Quiggin. Yes, he teaches still, he teaches one of the PPE courses, and that’s sort of his, like the the environmental economics perspective on climate change is very much up his alley way. So it’s, it’s good to hear your perspective as well. But not

Gene Tunny  33:45

having John here. So we can get you on the question, but I’m not. I don’t imagine John Wooden is there’ll be arguing for degrowth would eventually be arguing for a high carbon price to bring about that transition as rapidly as possible. And to try and encourage innovation. And the great thing about him is that we’re proven is that we are great innovators when there’s a challenge. So be maybe there’ll be people we did have to have that that radical policy shift because the Antarctic starts, you know, I mean, we know that the sea ice is the extent of that is not as great as it has been. It looks. You look at that chart. Okay, that’s a bit of a worry if that continues. And if we do have all of these record heat waves, I mean, we’re currently in El Nino at the moment here. So that’s driving as the lot of the heat. Yeah. If things get really bad, then yeah, sure. We may have to act rapidly. There may be a hit in the short term, but I expect we’ll solve it somehow. Humans are great innovators, loose. That’s the hope maybe that’s naive optimism.

Joe  34:48

No, definitely. Definitely something to cling on to at least with hope. Yeah. Awesome.

Gene Tunny  34:56

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting outlets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

35:43

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this. To begin your own podcasting journey, head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

How Ben Bernanke can bring Superforecasting to the Bank of England w/ Nicholas Gruen – EP207

Host Gene Tunny chats with Dr. Nicholas Gruen about economic forecasting and what recommendations former US Fed Chair Ben Bernanke could make in his current review of forecasting at the Bank of England. Nicholas, the CEO of Lateral Economics, discusses the shortcomings of economic forecasting and shares his insights into how it can be improved. The conversation was inspired by Nicholas’s article in the Financial Times titled “How to Improve Economic Forecasting.” The episode is split into two parts, with the second part focusing on the feedback Nicholas received on his article. 

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

About this episode’s guest: Nicholas Gruen

Described by the Financial Times’ Chief Economic Writer Martin Wolf as “a brilliant man who deserves to be better known”, and by former Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner as “Australia’s foremost public intellectual”, Dr Nicholas Gruen is a policy economist, entrepreneur and commentator on our economy, society and innovation.

What’s covered in EP207

  • [00:02:13] Ben Bernanke’s review of economic forecasting at the Bank of England.
  • [00:05:23] Hedgehogs and foxes. 
  • [00:09:36] Long-term issues with economic forecasting. 
  • [00:13:18] Improving economic forecasting techniques. 
  • [00:19:29] Forecasting accuracy. 
  • [00:24:30] Open sourcing economic forecasting. 
  • [00:26:29] Developing a forecasting market. 
  • [00:34:21] Tetlockian forecasting tournaments. 
  • [00:48:37] Wind in the Willows author Kenneth Grahame at the Bank of England.

Links relevant to the conversation

Video versions of the conversations featured in this episode on Nicholas’s YouTube channel:

https://youtu.be/uJNU8z9148w?si=lk4jfQMWkVx1__Le

https://youtu.be/KflFvpeC3iI?si=sFOaNruFTMet802j

Information on the Bank of England’s Citizens’ Panels/Forums:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/get-involved/citizens-panels

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/about/get-involved/citizens-panels/the-uk-economy-insights-from-the-bank-of-englands-citizens-panels

Mandarin column in which Nicholas declares former Bank of England Chief Economist Andy Haldane was “my favourite public servant in all the world”:

https://www.themandarin.com.au/87423-now-time-complacency-rba-vs-bank-england-edition/

Transcript: How Ben Bernanke can bring Superforecasting to the Bank of England w/ Nicholas Gruen – EP207

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny  00:06

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show. Hello, thanks for tuning in to the show. In this episode, I chat with Dr. Nicholas Gruen about economic forecasting. Nicholas is CEO of lateral economics. He’s been described by the Financial Times as Chief Economic writer Martin Wolf as a brilliant man who deserves to be better known, and by former Australian finance minister Lindsay Tanner, as Australia’s foremost public intellectual. This conversation was inspired by an article that Nicholas had published in late August in the Financial Times How to improve economic forecasting. The FTS one line summary of the article was myopia and groupthink mean this science is not as evolved as it could be. This episode is in two parts. The first was recorded prior to Nicholas’s article coming out, and in the second part, we reconvened to go over some of the feedback that he received on the article. The video version of the first part is available on Nicholas’s YouTube channel. I’ll include links in the show notes to the YouTube channel, and to material mentioned in the episode. Okay, let’s get into the conversation. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Nicholas Gruen. Nicolas, good to be catching up with you again on economic forecasting. Likewise, so Nicholas, last month, the Bank of England announced that Ben Bernanke, so the former chair of the Federal Reserve in the US, he is to lead a review into forecasting at the Bank of England. So the the court of the Bank of England’s pleased to announce Dr. Ben Bernanke has agreed to lead a review of the bank’s forecasting and related processes during times of significant uncertainty, or we’ve had plenty of those. And he’ll be supported by the bank’s Independent Evaluation Office. Now, Nicholas, you’ve had some thoughts on what Ben Bernanke could offer to the Bank of England regarding forecasting, haven’t you? So would you be able to give us an overview of what those thoughts are, please?

Nicholas Gruen  02:44

Sure. So their thoughts? I’m not terribly hopeful. And that’s an amazing thing to say about Ben Bernanke. I regard Ben Bernanke happens to have a Nobel Prize on his shelf. Ah, you’ll notice that I don’t. And I also think he’s a great guy. You know, he’s a very sensible, practical economist with a lot of understanding of empirical economics and happened to be a one of the world’s experts on the Great Depression at the time when boy, did we need an expert on the Great Depression in the Fed. So that’s all great. I fear that Ben Bernanke, like a really scandalously large proportion of economists are so caught up in their own discipline that they haven’t noticed what has happened in adjacent areas. And this is a little bit like, what’s been going on is something quite like what Daniel Kahneman and Danny and a must for Seversky. If I got that, right, we’re cooking up with behavioural economics. It’s happened a little since then. But a guy that many people will have heard of Philip Tetlock, he got tenure in about 1982 Or three. And he decided that he would now engage in a long term project that he always wanted to engage in, but you can’t if you don’t have tenure, because you get sacked before you could get a publication if there’s so long range thing. And what he wanted to measure was do geo political experts. You can call Tom Friedman. He certainly poses as a geopolitical expert, The New York Times columnist, but also intelligence analysts, academics, international relations academics. If you ask them to forecast events, do they add value? Do they the fact that it’s quite clear they know more than your average bear? Does that translate into actually having actionable better capacity to say what’s going to happen? And the answer was on average and barely. And then he divided that up into experts that did add something. And they didn’t add that much, and experts that actually were worse than ranked, or worse than a naive prediction, and he divided them up into hedgehogs and foxes, hedgehogs no one big thing. And that means that their forecasts are worse than yours or mine, Gene, because we’re just trying to doing our best, whereas the hedgehog will have one big thing, you’ll be anti communist or pro communist, or this or that. And that banks, their forecasts worse than a fox, I think of someone like the economist, John Maynard Keynes, or Paul Krugman, as a fox, someone who knows many things and is trying to balance all those things, and to work out how much this matters and how much that matters, and how much do I know and so on. Now, that’s pretty striking. But it doesn’t tell us exactly what to do. But there is one thing that the study showed us. And it didn’t, we didn’t actually need the study to show us. But it gives us a very concrete illustration of a problem, which is, and this goes on in economics, which is that if you don’t issue your forecasts in a form, that can be back tested, that we can revisit and say did was that a good forecast or a bad forecast? And how did it compare with your peers? You’re basically, you know, it’s a bit like fortune telling. And to do that. What Tetlock did was he forced analysts to say precisely what they were predicting would happen, or in fact, he would specify something like, my Mikhail Gorbachev will continue to be the secretary of the general Committee of the Communist Party, whatever it was called, then, by the end of 1988. What are the chances and then you would have to say, I think the chances are 88% or 23%? Not probably, which means somewhere between 51% and 100%. And not unlikely. And not you can’t rule this out the sort of things you read in a newspaper column. Now we need to do that with economic forecasts.

Gene Tunny  07:31

Yeah, yeah. So just for background, so Philip Tetlock is a Canadian American Political science professor at University of Pennsylvania. And yeah, he wrote that book, super forecasting, or super forecasters. I’m

Nicholas Gruen  07:46

just gonna get on to the talk about that’s the book for the people who can watch not the people who are listening. I’m holding it up to the microphone. Thank you.

Gene Tunny  07:54

Yeah, absolutely. And so he was looking at, you mentioned geopolitical forecasts. But we’re interested in economic forecasts. Now, we know and I guess the general public knows that economic forecasts have been had. there been some notable failures and Amin in Australia that they go way back. I mean, always remember the I mean, I guess I was young at the time was in high school with the Treasury. And was forecasting the soft landing during was it the 9091 recession? Yeah. And it was the worst recession since

Nicholas Gruen  08:30

then, you know, the problems. Yeah. And there are other notable examples. More recently, we’ve been expecting wages to pick up and abroad for about, well over a decade, it just goes on. And, and to their credit, the Treasury and the reserve, published these graphs, I might see if I can put one in the show notes or on screen, or the editor can put one on screen, where you see wage growth gradually trending down with every year, the forecast is to come back to the long term at what was the long term trend average, it’s no longer the long term trend average.

Gene Tunny  09:08

Yeah. And there are some charts like that in the latest intergenerational report that the Treasury has put out, Jim Chalmers launched today, which showed just how bad those long run projections have been. So you know, it’s a it’s a problem, both in the short term and the long term. With economics. Yes. So I suppose yeah, be good to sort of to diagnose I mean, what are the what’s the actual issue and the problem is that the the economy is fundamentally difficult to forecast but

Nicholas Gruen  09:41

no, but I mean, we’re not even trying so to try, we would nail economic forecast down to something that can be properly back tested so I we have a forecast. You may know what the Treasury’s forecast is for wages or growth. Next year, I don’t you just give us a number. Even if you don’t know, the sort of thing you think it should be around what for wages, wages or for growth it all for economic growth,

Gene Tunny  10:12

it’s probably around 2%, or two and a half percent or so and a

Nicholas Gruen  10:16

half, okay, two and a half percent. So first problem is that if the forecast is 2.5%, and it comes in at 2.62%, is that a success? Or is that a failure? So because 2.5%, we call it a point forecast, and the chances that it comes in exactly at that number are infinitesimally small, I just have to add decimal points. And eventually, it won’t won’t be 2.500000. It will be it will fall on one side or the other of 2.5. So we need if, if we’re going to back test, a forecast, we need a forecast that we can declare a success or a failure. And the next thing we need is we need the forecast to tell us how confident they are that it’s got that that event will happen. And that happens to be exactly how weather forecasters forecast. They give us an event it will rain which I’m sure has a media or logical definition of you know more than this amount of precipitation in 24 hours or in in an hour. It will rain and it will rain with this degree of probability. Now what’s beautiful about that is Daniel Kahneman says that there are places where he said this I think he’s a no doubt he’s been more circumspect in other places, but I’ve heard him say, all professions are overconfident? Well, weather forecasters are not overconfident. Because the confidence with which they express themselves becomes part of the metric by which we judge them. And so they make a point of being exactly the right degree of confidence. So I think of weather forecasting as one of the few Socratic areas of domain expertise, because it knows what it knows. And it knows the limits of that knowledge. So that’s what we need to start to try to do with economists. And I think it was you who sent me this thing in the last six months where some of the techniques that Philip Tetlock has perfected has developed, have started to show dividends in economic forecasting. Now, one thing we haven’t explained yet is that that in that book, super forecasting, Philip Tetlock took the ideas with which he demonstrated how little value was added, and how some types of people added more value than others. And he asked himself the question, could we identify the very best to the people who consistently add the most value? Can we understand more about how they do that? Could we get them together and get them to help each other? And the answer is that using these simple and common sensical techniques, you can actually start to get a lot better. Certainly, geopolitical forecasting. And now there’s some evidence that we may be able to get better at economic forecasting.

Gene Tunny  13:32

Right? So with weather forecasting, so in your you’ve been working on a, an article on this, and you’ve identified that weather forecasts are much better than they were 30 years ago. Yeah. Now, that’s because of an infant. My understanding is that’s because of the ingestion of so much new data. And I mean, we’ve seen with that integrated marine observing system, for example, the imass organisation that we’ve done some work for that there’s a whole bunch of data that comes from the ocean, and that helps with weather forecasts. They’ve got huge numerical models and their physical processes involved that they can actually model with economics is a lot, a lot more challenging. So yeah, weather I guess, it is embarrassing. How economic forecasting hasn’t hasn’t improved. And I suppose that does suggest we need to, we need to adopt a different approach is not necessarily going to be we’re not necessarily going to improve our forecast by building more complicated models or bringing in more data. Perhaps we do need to adopt a new approach along the lines of this super forecasting methodology. And you mentioned, yep, there was that evidence about how they’re forecasting the Fed rate decisions much more accurately than others their super forecasting approach. So I guess you are starting to unpack it. What do you see as the main elements of This super forecasting approach, Nicolas.

Nicholas Gruen  15:02

So one of the things that that I think is quite interesting and useful is that like Daniel Kahneman, who was the last person who really, I won’t say revolutionise because it’s not true, but he really he started a whole new way of thinking about things within economics and managed to get himself a Nobel Prize for his trouble. And he’s a psychologist. And so it was Philip Tetlock and Philip Tetlock is drawing our attention to something that’s incredibly important. But because it lies outside of economics, economists just ignore it. And what he’s saying is that if you want to be a good forecaster, you must forecast in a particular way, I’ll say you must have a certain kind of psychology. Now. In fact, in philosophy, there is a term for this, I don’t much fancy it, but the term is Virtue Epistemology. That is if you want to, if you want to be good at knowing if you want to be a good scientist, if you want to be good at mastering a domain and being useful to other people by not being overconfident. By actually knowing how much you know and making it count. Then you have to exhibit virtues, you have to exhibit actual virtues, you have to have the courage of your convictions, you have to have the humility to know when other people or events might be, make it time for you to revise your opinion. Is this reminding you of lots of economists? You’ve talked to Jim? And perhaps not so so the list that I put in this op ed that I’ve written for the Financial Times and may have been published by the time you people get to listen to this conversation? What qualities does he see in Super forecasters, as well as mastering the mesh necessary formal techniques, which we economists are very strong on. They’re open minded, careful, curious, and so critical. away like Socrates, of how little they know, they’re constantly seeking to learn from unfolding events, and from respected colleagues. So that’s how you forecast I would argue, that is how you do anything that is expert. And there’s a really important thing here. Because even if we can’t improve forecasting much, and one thing I do want to throw in, parenthetically on that question, is that when economists make for when a central bank or a treasury makes forecasts, this is a forecast of how certain economic aggregates are going to move that they plan to try to manipulate on on the way through. So it’s a very, it’s a very different kind of forecast, the, the forecasters of the weather don’t say, well, it’s going to be a 30% chance of rain on Tuesday, and we’re going to be trying to make it a 30% chance of rain on or we’re going to be making trying to make it a 20% chance of rain. So so it’s it’s a lot more complicated. But one of the things that are super forecaster might do person have that kind of temperament might do is they might say, well, our point forecasts much used to us. And the answer is I don’t think they I mean, quite apart from the fact that we can’t back test them. I think the most important thing I want to know as a business person doing planning of for something or as an employee, and I’m thinking should I buy a house or buy an investment property or whatever? Seen, I think the most important metric I want the most important thing I want forecast is what is the chance of a recession in the next six months or 12 months or two years? So I think we should be trying to forecast a lot more along those lines. Now there’s a problem and that is that well, firstly, let’s talk about the problem of forecasting at the moment. Because economists forecasts are not probabilistic because we don’t test an economist according to they don’t issue those forecasts like there is a 40% chance of recession or whatever. Almost all the time, even when a recession is more likely than most other times, it’s still unlikely that there will be a recession. And so now what we’ve got is we’ve got all the forecasters in the same situation as 40 tippers, which is I might want to say that the backmarker What do you call it the last of the non favourite in a horse race or a football am, I might want to say that I think the favourite has got an unusually large chance of losing. But I still think it’s more than 50%. So if people are just saying, How many times did you tip the right answer, then we’re not going hunting for who knows that this is the who’s got some extra information, which is that for some reason or other some some particular players not inform or something rather, that there’s a lower chance of the favourite winning than usual, no one has an incentive to do that if we’re going to give a prize out to the person at the end of the year, who tipped more winners than anyone else. And that’s real. And that’s what happens in economics. So of the last 18 recessions, economists pick, tipped about one or two of them. And if you’re competing with other economists, with how often you got it right or wrong, that’s actually quite a rational strategy. So what we need is, we need to find a way for economists to put their hand up and say, I think the chance of recession have gone from, let’s say, 10% per year or something like that, maybe a bit more, I think to the next year, it’s 35%, or whatever, and then at least you get an effective, you know, a number.

Gene Tunny  21:24

Right. So is this what Ben Bernanke should be recommending he should be recommending that the Bank of England provides percentage estimates of regarding its forecast, so how confident it is? I mean, to an extent it does that, I think, doesn’t it? It has Fein charts. It has fan

Nicholas Gruen  21:41

charts, it has fan charts. And I think, yeah, once you try to operationalize this in economics, you end up with a lot of fan charts. Now fan charts, we may or may be able to show those on the screen. And in the show notes, fan charts show you the point forecast through time, and then they say this, the 70% confidence interval is this fat. And the 90% confidence interval is this fat. In other words, if you want to know what were the the range within which we’re 90% Sure, that’s the range. Now the problem is that range isn’t helpful doing because the 90% range usually takes you from somewhat one of the most savage recessions you can possibly imagine through to boom conditions. So we do need to think about that. But what really, I think that there’s a few things here. One of the things is that we need to get, this is a good way to get different teams and different forecasters to compete with each other. It’s a good way to compare forecasters, so that you’re constantly getting feedback on who’s good and who’s not. The other thing that I think it does, well, it also enables us to surface you can have a different series, which is not in any central bank or Treasury that I know of, which is the chances of recession, you can have that series and you can have people trying to forecast that. Now there’s a further problem. And the problem is that we get feedback on what growth was every time we forecast it, because we can’t we get a growth number. We don’t get feedback on what the question was there a session will accept that the answer is no. It only varies once a decade or so. That’s a really big problem. Because if you want to ask who’s the best person at forecasting recessions, then you’ve got to wait 20 or 30 years to even start to short sort the sheep from the goats. Yeah. So Philip Tetlock has actually been working on this on a problem. It’s not in economics. It’s in his his the area that he manages to get the most funding from, which is in intelligence organisations and so on. But what he’s trying to ask is, can we leverage the credibility of forecasters of things we do get a lot of feedback from for these other areas where we get less feedback? And I think the answer is yes, we should be able to do that. And we must be able to do that in some areas, and maybe not in others. And then we don’t know about this area, but that’s the sort of thing that we should

Gene Tunny  24:28

be exploring. Okay, so for economics, so just to summarise, are you arguing for open sourcing for coal, that’s

Nicholas Gruen  24:36

a separate thing. That was what I was going to get to, which is that so what I want to see is that this is one area that given that we’ve outsourced all kinds of things in government that we shouldn’t have outsourced. Maybe we could outsource some of the things we should and we this is the sort of thing that we can outsource on I don’t even mean outsource we can’t what we should do the best Bank of England, the Reserve Bank of Australia can get with the programme and the programme is the smartest person is always outside the room. And in some areas, you can, in some sense, bring them in. And in other areas you can’t. But in the area of forecasting, you can and you can hold a Tetlock like forecasting competition, you can say, we’re trying to get forecast for this, and this and this and chances of recession in six months, one year and two years, and then everyone can participate. Now, the world or certainly the markets and the people in the different national countries, they want to know, what’s the reserve, what’s the central bank forecast, so that central bank has its own, I think that central bank should have its own teams, team or teams in these forecasts. But they should separate out the teams from the bank itself, and the bank should observe the forecast should observe the forecasting competition. And from that forecasting competition, say what it thinks is its best forecasts and those become signed with the imprimatur of the central bank. They might be produced by the central bank team, or one of them, they might be produced by somebody completely outside, they might be produced by some kind of hybrid. And all of this is visible to everyone. And so we’re starting to develop a market in which we can start to see who’s really good at this. And some people are going to surprise us on both the upside and the downside, by the way. So that’s what I’m suggesting.

Gene Tunny  26:46

Yeah, I mean, what, what I’d like to understand is, to what extent will it be teams, interdisciplinary teams of economists, and then some other non economists, may be busy people who are expert in business or maybe not even expert in business people who are just good forecasters. And when I was chatting with Warren hatch from good judgement, this is a organisation he set up with Philip Tetlock, he was telling me that it’s people with good pattern recognition skills, and then be in any discipline and people who are cognitively flexible, or they’re there. As you were saying before they actually they’re not caught up with their particular theory. They’re actually yeah, they’re evaluating everything. Yeah, that’s right. That’s

Nicholas Gruen  27:33

right. So the answer is, we don’t have to know the answer to that. But we Yes, you would expect that the teams that are going to perform best will be hybrid teams will have economists Well, technically excellent economists in them. They’ll have people who look at other kinds of things. And there will certainly be some surprises. And some people who’ve always had a fascination with, you know, certain kinds of things which turn out to be relevant to how you forecast. So that’s where I would expect it to, to end up. But maybe it’ll just be economic experts. If they win the if they win the competitions. All this Tetlock stuff will have proven itself to be relevant for economics, but both common sense and the evidence suggests that that that’s not the way it will turn out. And there aren’t that many areas where at the centre of government, you can improve performance and improve. And through that improve economic performance someone. This is this is one of those billion dollar bills on the pavement that we find ourselves talking about from time to time, Gene,

Gene Tunny  28:46

absolutely. Yeah. And I misremembered. What Treasury’s forecast is 2023 24 GDP forecasts for Australia at one and a half percent. So not Oh, is there any

Nicholas Gruen  29:01

memorable number or perhaps it is memorable, but not in a good

Gene Tunny  29:04

way? Just so many numbers out there? Harada? Yeah, exactly. Exactly. I feel sorry for these politicians, they get put on the spot about these different numbers from toe to toe? Oh, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. fully on board with that suggestion. At the very least it’d be a good trial, a good pilot. Exactly that out, see how it will works?

Nicholas Gruen  29:23

Well, I’ll just say one other thing, which is that this is again, what we’re talking about here is convening power, not executive power. So anyone can run this. The Business Council could run this. It’s not it won’t be cheap, but it’s not very expensive. Having worked at the Business Council, I can tell you, their budget easily would easily accommodate this. You could do it for a few $100,000. Anyone can do this. So it’s it’s kind of extraordinary and pretty outrageous that we’ve really known this, that there are benefits here. We can do this better. And it just gets ignored again. And again, it got ignored in the review of the RBA that we had here. It’s pretty terrible that we’re not looking around and trying to grab hold of things that are in the ether, that it’s starting to work, and that we can benefit from.

Gene Tunny  30:21

Yeah, I suppose there’s a public benefit to it. It’s not necessarily in the interest of the people in the Treasury or the Reserve Bank or the Bank of England or their ministers. I think that’s one of the the issues.

Nicholas Gruen  30:32

Yes, but economists are pretty impatient with policy makers who don’t do the right thing, but that the economists have to figure this out themselves. And I would, I would have thought that it’s Well, time for this to be standard economic advice, and it’s very, very left field and economic advice at this stage.

Gene Tunny  30:55

Okay, we’ll see how your Financial Times I bet is received?

31:00

Well, let’s see. Let’s see what Ben says. Very good, he might be giving you a call. Let’s hope.

Gene Tunny  31:09

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  31:15

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you Frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis, studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  31:44

Now back to the show. So Nicholas, it’s been a few weeks now since your article was published in the Financial Times. So your article, how do we improve economic forecasting? And we chatted about that, in the previous conversation, the in the lead up to that coming out. So your ideas about how the Bank of England and other central banks or treasuries or finance ministers can improve economic forecasting? So it’s been a few weeks and says come out, you’ve had a bit of feedback. Yeah. How would you describe the reaction to your article?

Nicholas Gruen  32:22

I think it’s been the best reaction. I’ve published three pieces in the Financial Times of this kind, which is a sort of, hey, why don’t we do this? It’s reasonably out there kind of proposal and my judgement of the comments, and you’ve looked at them slightly more carefully than me that I looked at them, you know, in the first 24 or 48 hours, I thought they were more positive, and more constructive than most than is mostly the case in comment sections. It’s a pretty sad state of affairs. And nevertheless, the case that even in a really high quality newspaper, like the Financial Times, a lot of the people they’re not super ignorant, and, and just just totally dumb, but what they do is they sort of come on and they make a point. And the point is a perfectly okay, point, one of the points for instances, well, weather forecasting, which was full of praise for is different to economic forecasting, because the weather doesn’t decide to change its mind when it sees a forecast. And human beings do. It’s a very good point. It doesn’t completely obliterate all the points I was making. So if someone wants to come on and say that, that’s fine, I know that, but they’re not really participating in the spirit of things. Another person who wrote a letter to the Financial Times I think his name’s Tim Connington, or Contin, you might know his name. He said that really what mattered was having models that have proper allowance for monetary policy in them well, I’m not against having models that have the proper allowance for monetary policy in them, but it doesn’t really address the point. And then, and then there was some really quite good criticisms. The other thing was really good was that I was approached by a number of people, some of them well, one was a large corporate, which is doing Tetlock in forecasting tournaments internally. That was an interesting exercise. And I’ve been engaged with them. I’ve been they haven’t been paying me or anything, but I’ve been suggesting that they look further afield to the services of people like Warren hatch who you interviewed. On your podcast, he runs a thing called Well, it’s called good judgement. I don’t know whether it’s good judgement Inc. Or, anyway, it’s not the Philip Tetlock project which is run with inside University But it’s an offshoot of it, which is a commercial project. That was interesting. There was another economist, who was really quite pissed off, if I might say this, about the fact that forecasting prowess is not a very strong criterion of promotion inside government agencies that deal with economics include, including government agencies, in which forecasting is a very important matter. And he’s right. And I talked to him about Kaggle. And how Kaggle, the data science forecasting platform that I was involved in, when it started up, has changed the market to a substantial extent because people want data scientists who actually perform well. And you can see whether they performed well or not on Kaggle. And then another person who contacted me was actually from the Bank of England. Now, I’ve not had that experience in Australia, where someone from inside government you publish something. I mean, it wasn’t directly critical of the bank, I suppose you could say it was in a way. Anyway, he engaged me. And he said, Well, actually, we do, too, a little bit of what you’re suggesting. And it’s true, that the Bank of England, which is about my favourite Central Bank, I think they’ve done better than any other central bank in terms of their thinking. Not it turns out in terms of all the judgments about the about inflation, and so on, because we do we require a degree of clairvoyance for that. And they’ve had a recent spate of arguably bad luck in terms of working out the future. But he pointed out that the Bank of England does have a very, very simple in the form of seeking feedback from the community. It asks people for their own forecasts. Well, that’s a good beginning. And it’s better than any other bank that I know. I thought it was a terrific reaction.

Gene Tunny  37:06

Oh, that’s good. Yeah. Citizens panels, I think they call them so I’ll put a link in the show notes. I thought that was really good. And, and it really is heartening to see how open they are. And you’re right. I mean, I can’t remember anyone from a Australian government agency getting in touch or if they did get in touch, it would be all this has to be confidential, and it wouldn’t be an official email. So I think that’s good about the Bank of England. So that was great to see that. Now, just on some of those points, you raise you mentioned about modelling and that was it one comment that said I Okay, the issue was just the specification of the model. And I think you the way you reacted to that was, was was right. And one of the some of the comments I took out of the ft. Like there was some positive really positive comments in the comment section of the Financial Times. It was one about, ah, this sort of approach could have helped us in the early days of COVID. It could have avoided us from having some of your apocalyptic or Yeah, ridiculous, for ridiculous, and I think there was some criticism of the forecast room from his sage. I think they were sage forecasters. Yeah. That’s right,

Nicholas Gruen  38:20

sage, and was a guy who got himself briefly famous. And then arguably infamous. You put his name in these notes we have in front of us, Ferguson. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Neil Ferguson. That’s it. And that, and you just had to look into that for a while to see that. The model was an immensely complex model. It wasn’t clear what it was useful for. But it wasn’t useful for quickly trying to understand, you know, ask quick, what if questions, it was an ornery monster of a model that produced a different result every time he ran it, because it was so common. Yeah. Just just not not built to certainly not in that situation. It was not built to help people make quick probabilistic decisions. But because it was a model, and because he was at a university Imperial College, as I recall, I hope correctly, then he had the stamp, you know, you had the brand. And so we spent a fair bit of our time with his model. It was pretty low grade stuff.

Gene Tunny  39:31

And so some of the negative comments or there were some people who are saying, Oh, well, look, you’re not you haven’t taken to account the fact that we’ve made all these advances in economic forecasting, and there are these new techniques and you’re unaware of them. I’m not sure that that’s true. And when I didn’t

Nicholas Gruen  39:47

mention any No, I didn’t mention any. So I mean, I’m sure I’m unaware of some of them, but he had no evidence that I was because what he’s or she is criticising me for is St. totally irrelevant. There is a state of the art of forecasting, the Bank of England or anyone else is either at the forefront or a bit back from the forefront. And the way to get to the forefront is to have a process of integrity, where people who are good at forecasting end up with better reputations than people who are not so good at

Gene Tunny  40:21

forecast. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And the point I would make, like when I read those comments, they were almost as I think they are assuming that it’s the model that gives the forecast that’s published in the Bank of England monetary policy statement or, or in any of these statements from economic agencies, it’s actually a forecast directly from a model. And it almost never is, there’s always an element of judgement, the model is one input into the the actual official forecast. And if you read the bank, the publication’s of the Bank of England, that’s very clear. And so your approach is about taking all of the the evidence out there or different views. I mean, you know, it could be in I think there’s something I was chatting with Warren hatch about, if I remember correctly, Warren was saying that, look, there can be value from having people in teams, like some people, someone has a model than there’s others who are more qualitative. And there are others who are looking at different bits of data you want. You don’t want a variety of approaches, I think and perspectives to get better forecasts.

Nicholas Gruen  41:27

I’d say some, I think that’s absolutely right. But I think you can say something more than that. We exist in a society in which governments and agents and organisations are performing for our entertainment, if I can put it that way, at least under the guise of the media, they’re doing stuff, they’re justifying them stuff. They’re got comms people coming out, saying, This is what we’re doing, and they’re putting over a plausible story. And then you get pundits, I would say, like us, except I try not to do this. But almost all pundits and almost all Twitter pundits, almost all instant experts, they come out. And they say what, really what you should do is x or y. But in fact, what you should do is a very complex and acculturated performance. So it will involve technical understanding and modelling. It will then involve judgments, as you say, but then how do you get the people with the best judgement to make the judgments? Well, we haven’t really solved that problem, we just get the most senior people to make those judgments. So it’s like me saying, I want a good COVID vaccine. And this is the process that we should go through to get the COVID vaccine. What I want is a process that has legitimacy, because I believe that if I looked into what that process was, it would add up it would have integrity. In the words of Charlie Munger, the highest form of civilization is a seamless web of deserved trust. In other words, there isn’t a clear line between the pundit class and what you do. If you’re doing anything difficult building a bridge or dare I say, a nuclear submarine pundits can can’t actually say very much, they can say a few things about what would be really dumb. But there’s so much that goes into this. And the public discussion isn’t had in that kind of way. But that, ultimately, is one of the reasons that I’m such a fan of Philip Tetlock stuff on forecasting and creating forecasting tournaments, because it’s one of the few areas where you can start to build some objective relation between reality. And as poor munchkins working away trying to work out what that reality is, and our social and political institutions have done? Well, the job they’ve done might be the best in history, but when you look at it, it’s not all that great, there are plenty of things wrong with it. So, this is a rare case where there is a better way you can see what it is you can understand its principles and we should really try to implement it and also learn from it how how we could extend that since making reality contacting function.

Gene Tunny  44:31

Yeah, absolutely, fully agree there. So, I mean, one other point I just wanted to make is on that, the forecasting the the whatever the you know, best practice or the in terms of technical forecasting. One of the articles there was, it was linked to in the in the comment section, the Financial Times it was an article that was by a number of forecasting experts and one of them was Jennifer Castle’s, who works with David Hendry. And Henry has been on the show. And if you’re interested in these issues, that would be a good conversation to go back to because David talks a lot about the ways that he tries to get his model based forecast as best as possible. Now, that’s, that can be an input into this a super forecasting approach. It’s not, these things aren’t mutually exclusive. But what he’s doing, he’s trying to build an econometric model that can be an input into the forecasting. For the point I’d like to emphasise is that the forecasts that end up in the reports and then end up influencing budget, so they’re never just the outcome of models, because we know that a model is useful. But you there’s always a judgement involved, you’re always going to be tweaking things to make it because there’ll be things in the model you go hang on that may not be realistic in the current circumstances. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, exactly. Right. Oh, so Nicholas. I just wanted that quick catch up. Because I thought, yeah, that was a great article of yours. And it’s got some excellent feedback. And I think it’s, it’s probably achieved what you wanted to achieve, I imagine.

Nicholas Gruen  46:08

Yeah, absolutely. Even though they told me I only had 650 words, and then they only allowed me 570 words. So my nice paragraphs about what a big fan I was of Andy Haldane, who was no longer at the Bank of England, they were all taken out the likes of fanboy helding while he was a civil servant, was my favourite civil servant in all the world. Very good. Yes.

Gene Tunny  46:36

I’ll put some links in to about Andy Hill died. Did you? Have you written this on your club dropout? Or Nicholas? Your? Um, I’m

Nicholas Gruen  46:44

not sure I have I’ve. Yeah, maybe I should. But But no, I have because I published some articles in the Mandarin, which is an Australian Public Policy Magazine, if you like, which is and they’re always backed up onto my blog, and one compared the Australian Reserve Bank, with the Bank of England and the and particularly the blog notes underground. I think it’s called always good to quote Dostoevsky. I suppose when Greg Clark isn’t quoting, isn’t quoting titles from Hemingway, the Bank of England can be can be paraphrasing Dostoevsky in the name of its blog notes underground, I think it’s called. And it has lots of really interesting think pieces. It’s not very standard academic stuff, although there’s some of that as well. I think it’s a very sad thing that government, certainly independent agent, government agencies around the world don’t do that a great deal more. I may be fondly imagined that Andy was one of the movers and shakers behind that. But certainly he did lead a lot of research showing the costs of too big to fail implicit subsidies for large banks and just did lots of use the, the US the independence of the central bank in a way that was very, very helpful in difficult times during the global financial crisis. And in the years after the financial crisis is people trying to work out what had gone wrong and how to fix things. Yeah, absolutely.

Gene Tunny  48:23

It’s, it’s interesting that Yeah, I agree about the Bank of England, probably being the best central bank certainly has the best museum. I guess there’s that literary connection. Yes. And I only learned about this when I went to the museum, Kenneth Graham work there, the author with the willows. Hmm, yeah, I work there. I mean, I have relatively senior position there in the Bank of England because they’ve got a little display about Kenneth grime in there.

Nicholas Gruen  48:53

I missed it. I missed it. I’m sorry that I missed it. Because I have seen that museum. It’s quite small. It’s just a few artefacts as I recall a room or 2am I

Gene Tunny  49:02

wrong. Yeah, it’s a maybe a few rooms, but there’s that great display where you can lift up a bar of gold, you stick your hand in a glass glass box, and you’re gonna lift up an actual gold bar, which I thought was pretty cool. And you know, they’ve got all the currency. Yeah, he got up to the rank of Secretary in 1908. So I don’t think he was he wasn’t the governor, but he got up to a senior position. Excellent. Very good. Okay, Nicholas, thanks. Again. That was such a it was good to catch up because, yeah, good. always interested in economic forecasting, because we’ve had such a, unfortunately a mixed record of it in Australia and around the world. So it’s, it’s good to talk about a new approach and well done for doing your best to advance one.

Nicholas Gruen  49:50

Thanks very much

Gene Tunny  49:53

rato thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch match, I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if you’re podcasting outlets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

50:40

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey. Head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Business as Unusual: No such thing as Business as Usual anymore? w/ Rick Yvanovich – EP204

Serial entrepreneur and executive coach Rick Yvanovich talks about his new book “Business as Unusual: How to Thrive in the New Renaissance.” Rick argues that the world is continuing to undergo a massive shift and that there is no going back to normal. He shares his insights on the mindsets, habits, and skills necessary to succeed in this new era. The conversation also touches on Rick’s journey to Vietnam, where he currently resides, and what it was like living in Saigon during the pandemic. 
Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

About this episode’s guest:  Rick Yvanovich

Entrepreneur, Techie, Brit, baby boomer, bean counter in: supermarkets, accounting profession, breweries, newsagents, defence manufacturing, IT, Talent, F&B, property development and BP, in the UK, China, Singapore, Switzerland and Vietnam. Posted to BP China as Finance Manager, then to BP Vietnam in 1990 making him likely the longest Brit and one of the most seasoned expats in Vietnam.

Fellow Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), Chartered Global Management Accountant (CGMA), Fellow CPA Australia, MSc Strategic Business Management (Manchester Metropolitan University, UK), Certified Coaching and Mentoring Professional (CCMP), Certified Master Coach (CMC).

Treasurer & Board Member BritCham Vietnam, Vice-Chair AMCHAM HCMC DEC (Digital Economy) Group, Chairman Industry Advisory Committee RMIT Vietnam, founder/co-founder/investor/advisor of multiple start-ups.

Regular speaker for Talent, Coaching, Accounting, Digital Transformation, Project Management, Doing Business in Vietnam.

For further info about Rick, check out:

https://www.rickyvanovich.com/about/

What’s covered in EP204

  • [00:01:45] Rick’s career and journey to Vietnam
  • [00:08:00] Business as Unusual. 
  • [00:13:27] The great reshuffle. 
  • [00:16:29] The impact of lockdowns in Saigon. 
  • [00:25:01] Technological advancement. 
  • [00:29:19] Climate change and AI. 
  • [00:33:24] How to Thrive in the New Renaissance. 
  • [00:36:11] How AI helps you overcome the tyranny of the blank page. 
  • [00:41:06] Reflecting on life during COVID. 
  • [00:46:19] Zoom calls as a lifeline during COVID. 

Links relevant to the conversation

Rick’s book Business as Unusual:

https://www.rickyvanovich.com/books/bauu-book-series/

Article on “How AI is helping airlines mitigate the climate impact of contrails”:https://blog.google/technology/ai/ai-airlines-contrails-climate-change/

Transcript: Business as Unusual: No such thing as Business as Usual anymore? w/ Rick Yvanovich – EP204

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It was then checked over by a human being, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to pick up any clangers that potters… sorry, otters might have missed. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny  00:06

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory, evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. In this episode, I chat with entrepreneur Rick Yvanovic about his new book “Business as Unusual How to Thrive in the New Renaissance”. Rick argues that nothing is going back to normal and in Business as Unusual, he gives us his thoughts on the mindsets, habits and skills we need in a world in which there’s no more business as usual. Okay, let’s get into it. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Rick Yvanovich.

Rick Yvanovich, welcome to the programme.

Rick Yvanovich  01:17

Thanks for having me, Gene.

Gene Tunny  01:19

That’s terrific. Rick, keen to chat with you about your new book. “Business as Unusual, How to Thrive in the New Renaissance”. So very interested in that. To start off with I understand you’re coming to us from Vietnam. Could you tell us a bit about your journey to Vietnam, please, Rick, how did you end up there? In terms of your career trajectory?

Rick Yvanovich  01:47

Oh, great question. Gene. Yes, I am calling in today from Vietnam from Saigon or Ho Chi Minh City, as it’s known as today, you might be detecting from my accent that it’s from Britain. So I’m a Brit, although people do accuse me of having an Australian twang, but maybe your listeners would dispute that. How do I get here? How do I how do I get from where I actually started off with which was in a supermarket in the UK, I used to work in as a as a as a management trainee in a supermarket chain. When I left school and didn’t quite make the grades to go to university. And having worked in a supermarket for some months, after about six months, I realised I sort of felt brain dead. As in, I wasn’t applying my brain. Because I’m a numbers person. And, you know, I was a good student at school apart from when it came to those last exams. And for some reason, I suddenly decided, you know, work in a supermarket wasn’t for me, working with people wasn’t for me. I want to become an accountant. Okay, I don’t know where that came from. Maybe the numbers, or maybe it was a careers advisor at school who told me Oh, you’re a numbers guy, Rick you should become an accountant. So I went back to accounting school, became an accountant, joined an audit accounting firm, which I really didn’t like. So switch to management accounting and worked for a brewery, which was far more exciting. I think it’s the only company I’ve ever worked with where they, they gave you free beer and wine at lunch, and encouraged you to drink it. And then that led me on to other things. You know, I moved to defence, manufacturing, defence electronics, and then Facilities Management, or an IT Bureau, which is today known as cloud and cloud computing. And then I moved to real estate. And then I moved to oil. And when I was working for that oil company, they moved me to China. And then they moved me to Vietnam. So that was all the way back in 1990. So I’ve been here for a while. It’s been a it’s been a long and and unusual journey.

Gene Tunny  04:21

Right. Yeah. So you’ve worked across a diverse range of industries and you were in oil, but you no longer in in oil. You’ve been doing your own thing or running your own business. Is that right? And that’s what you’re doing now?

Rick Yvanovich  04:33

Yeah, that’s right. I mean, back in. In 94, I was gonna get shipped back to London, oil price was running at about $15 which was ridiculously low compared to today, and it was going even lower. So that obviously changed all the economics of those companies. And having been in Vietnam for some years, I hadn’t met my previous five bosses. So it would be very dangerous to step onto that plane and step off the plane in London and walk into the office because that will be a very short journey, I think. So I found out about a voluntary redundancy package and I retired. So I actually retired back in 1994. I am a workaholic, though. So that lasted for about five seconds. And I started up an IT company. And we’re still doing what we started literally 30 years ago or 29 years ago, so 30 years next year, which is to implement accounting systems, I’m an accountant, implement accounting systems, seems a bit obvious. And we do it in about 80 different countries around the world today.

Gene Tunny  05:39

Very good. Okay. As an economist, yes, I could, I’m very supportive of my cousins, or my fellow people in the accounting profession, and I understand the value of it. So that’s, that’s good stuff. Righto, well Rick I’d better ask you about your new book Business as Unusual. So with the title Business as Unusual, what are you driving at there? What is the, the genesis of that title? Could you explain that, please?

Rick Yvanovich  06:09

Well the genesis of of that was, you know, the book was birthed, as it were, in about 2020. I’ve always had this, you know, on my life goals list, you know, might be or could, may have been a life fantasy list, you know, go write a book. And it’s been that for years. But if we go back, you know, some years if we can all remember, not pretty sure if everybody listening can remember, 2020 is when we had that COVID pandemic sort of sprung upon us by surprise. And it was during that that period, that I actually, because I had time on my hands, funnily enough, I started writing a book, and got it actually published earlier this year. But you know, as, as we were locked down, and I know in Australia, you know, you locked down the country for some years. And here in Vietnam, we effectively locked down the country for some years as well. So as an expat here, as a foreigner, I could leave, but I couldn’t come back, necessarily. So that was not a good idea to leave. And so therefore, I actually worked out from the start of the pandemic, when they started the lock downs, which is tail end of the first quarter of 2020, I didn’t move more than about 10 or 15 kilometres away from where I live for two years, literally for two years. As this is was all happening. And as things started falling apart, and all the wheels fell off everything people kept saying, when this is over, when we you know, go back into the offices, and it goes back to business as usual, when you know, this is just the new normal, you know, we’ll get over this and everything can just go back to the way it was before. And this just sort of annoyed me more than anything else, but there’s nothing remotely normal about any of this, there is no business as usual. And especially here in Vietnam, you know, where the clamp downs were pretty tough, you know, confined to apartment, you know, you need a permit to literally walk out your front door and go down to go down to the shop once a week or twice. So we really, really, really tightly controlled and it was open, close, open, close, open, close. And this went on for a while. And each time people thought it’s over, and we can go back to the office. Something else happened, oh, we got another lockdown or another another. And I said, there is nothing usual about this. This is all unusual. And that’s where the where the title came from business as unusual. Because shock after shock or surprise after surprise kept hitting us whether it is another lockdown, or, you know, other things we’ve experienced. There’s a bit of a war going on and you know, in Europe isn’t there. You know, we have the economic turmoil that’s hitting some countries, we’ve had the great resignation or great insert word that you want. All these things are happening and have been happening. And, and it’s not over yet. This is just unusual.

Gene Tunny  09:34

Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Certainly since 2020. I fully agree with you. I’ve got a couple of questions and a few things I want to explore. So Rick, you said you know things aren’t going back to normal? I mean, what have you noticed what things have you noticed haven’t really settled down in in say, the way we work or the way we live? So the economy society, what have you really noticed that hasn’t gone back to normal?

Rick Yvanovich  10:03

There are a few things. So when we look at normal, and what do we really mean by that? So you could say that’s linked to a bit business as usual. So that business as usual doesn’t have to be in a work context. It can just be an a non-work or a life context. And I think this is all very much linked to this, this great resignation or reshuffle or whatever you want to want to call it. Pre-pandemic, pre all of this happening. Normal, one could argue, was the, you know, we get up, we go the office, we sit in our cube, you know, we go home, we get on with life. So married with our job, married to our job, maybe married to our mortgage, got bills to pay, right? Kids in school, all that kind of stuff. And I feel that there was a as an acceptance that we might be a bit bit like that hamster on a wheel at work, and we’re in a cube, we’re in a cage and we’re not going anywhere. COVID comes along, and they took the office away, they threw the cube away, and they threw that wheel away, you know, are we any better off? Well, we don’t even have a wheel to run around. And you know, we’re not even in that cube anymore. We’re just somewhere else which might be your home, or whatever you ended up being. Because at the end of the day, when the lock downs happen, it’s like musical chairs, isn’t it. And I know people who were on a business trip, and they couldn’t get back into Vietnam. They also couldn’t get back into their country of origin either. And they were just stuck wherever they were stuck. And you know, it’s crazy. I know some people who are stuck literally for six months or 10 months in a third country where they didn’t want to be in in the first place, but they couldn’t move. Anyway. So I liken it to they’ve, you know, we’re no longer that hamster or whatever, running in circles in a wheel going nowhere. I feel that people feel that they’re not too sure what direction to go in anymore. And so it’s more like, we’re still that hamster, or any other animal you want to call yourself. But we’re trapped in a maze. You know, there are lots of different directions we can go in. But they’re not necessarily leading anywhere. And it’s a bit like the, the Cheshire Cat in you know, Alice in Wonderland. And Alice comes to the crossroads and sees the cat and says, you know, which way should I go? And the cat’s sort of saying, well, it really depends where you want to go. And Alice is replying well, I really don’t know, the cat’s saying, well, it really doesn’t matter where you’re gonna go? Because you’re not going to go anywhere. And I feel that’s what the great resignation is all about. You know, some people have been forced to resign because their industry has collapsed, or the company they’re working for has gone bankrupt, and it’s collapsed. Or they didn’t like how they’re being treated when all this was happening, and so they’ve been, they’ve had to resign, or they were terminated, or they walked with their feet, because the grass is always greener. The only problem is, is people have found that the grass isn’t greener. And they’re still moving around. And so the ripple effects of the Great reshuffle as it’s, you know, as it morphed into, a still happening and is, you know, it’s happening across the world. So the way that we look at work has changed. And we can see this by the yo yo that we had, maybe it’s less this year, but especially last year, when companies opened up again, hey, you can come back to the office. Yeah but we’ve been working remotely for a year and I like working remotely, and I don’t want to come back to the office. So you know, if your company allows you to work 100% remotely and you like it, you know, you’re quids in right? But no worries. However, what happens if you know, you’re forced to come back to the office and you’re told you must come back to the office? Or you must be in the office for X days, when you want to not be in the office? Conversely, what are those? What about those people who really, really miss the office, they missed all that collaboration, all their friends and they want to go back to the office, okay, but they’re told no, no, we got rid of the offices we worked out we can save loads of money by having no offices, go work from home or wherever you want. So the whole way of working is changing and some companies are enforcing it. Some people are sitting on the fence, you know, and that’s really confusing. Okay, it’s really, really confusing. And so not only does that affect each one of our citizens as an individual, Hey, what is our company doing in which we may agree or disagree with? Working within that? Okay? Because I’m I’m seeing that more and more or I don’t know what the percentage is, but I feel it’s very high, very high percentage of companies have some form of remote work now or hybrid work. And the way that you work in a hybrid situation is new to a lot of us, okay? Like, hey, we went to the office and like we sit around the watercooler, we go out for lunch, we have a coffee, we go for a beer or whatever. That’s how it works. But how do you do that when half the people aren’t there? So how do we communicate? And today we’re on we’re on a zoom call, which maybe two years ago, and we weren’t that expert zoom. Whereas today, well come on it’s a basic skill to be expert on Zoom and Teams and all the other video conferencing platforms, it’s just a new tool the you absolutely must know. So all how do we work? Well, that’s a tricky one. What’s the best practice for companies? Oh, that’s a tricky one as well. How can there be a best practice when we’re still trying to work it out? And that’s just work. Now, if we look at, but from another point of view, how about our lives, okay, in the year or so, depending on what country you are in, and whatever restrictions that you experience, you know, if your work, the way you work has changed. How has the way you live changed? You know in a lot of countries is especially what I found here in Vietnam, having been locked down for so much. There’s some really basic things that I started missing. You know, I’m not a tree hugger. Okay. However, once them doors were open, you could actually go outside. Hello, gosh, there’s a tree. Let me touch it. I haven’t seen haven’t touched one of these for literally months. Okay, and then you know, what, when things are taken away, maybe we, we start appreciating, and we start noticing things that that we actually missed, going for a walk in the woods, silly thing like that. Or, you know, walking on the grass in bare feet or going down the beach, you know, strike going down the beach and striking up a Barbie. You know, all of these things were taken away.

Gene Tunny  17:35

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  17:41

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  18:10

Now back to the show.

As a matter of interest Rick, can I ask you about Saigon? Because I don’t know a lot about it. I mean, other than I mean, it’s a large city. So if it’s like other Southeast Asian cities, then it could be very difficult to go outside and just walk around and go on a nice relaxing walk. But what is it like? I mean, is it? Are there places you can go? Are there parks? If you do get outside? Or do you have to travel further afield.

Rick Yvanovich  18:39

Ho Chi Minh city, officially then 9 million people, okay 10 million people in a place with 10 million people. There’s one thing you’re guaranteed. They’re always people about? Ok? And the weird thing during COVID was the the city turned into arguably a ghost town. Okay, because like any other sort of urbanised city, where are the people really from? Are they native to the city? Or do they come from outside the city? So the big challenge that that I feel the Ho Chi Minh city face and its impact on people, was that yes, it’s you know, the bustling, the biggest Metropolis there is in the country. And it’s also the employer of an awful lot of people in in in the whole province of Ho Chi Minh city because the city itself is a province is so big. There are multiple industrial zones, and there are hundreds of 1000s if not millions of workers there. Those are not native to the province. They come from elsewhere. So when the pandemic hit, and they say stay at home. And if you’re a factory worker, and a home is the room that you’re sharing that you happen to live in, because you work in a factory. Okay, home is miles away. And as as they tighten down restrictions. And you know, we had things like tent cities emerge as an Yeah, if your company can provide you a place of sleeping a tent, literally, which could be set up in a factory or even in your office, then you can stay there, you don’t actually have to leave that office or building. And that happened for a while. But what what happens if you employ 50,000 people? It’s been tricky, right? So there was mass migration, when they shut it down. And hundreds of 1000s of people were fleeing the city. Okay, so the city sort of shrunk because a lot of people left. And it was literally a ghost city. And whereas on a normal day, you have to look both ways very, very carefully to cross the road. And, and if you go into the busy streets, you might even learned, need to learn how to cross the road, because there’s so much traffic, at this ghost home, you can do what I used to do back in the early 90s when I first arrived here, you could lie down in the middle of the street, and nothing would happen because there was nobody there. So it’s weird. So for me, it was like Oh nostalgia. There’s no one around this is wonderful. There’s an I can’t hear anything. There. No, no, guys, there’s no toot toot there. No, no, there’s no noise control here, either. And so there’s constant noise all the time. And it was like, it was wonderful. I loved it. So it also remind me what I miss what I missed what I’ve been missing.

Gene Tunny  22:00

I mean, it’s good that we’re out of lockdown and restrictions and even if we’re not getting back to normal, even if we’re in this business as unusual. I think it’s still preferable to, to what we had during the pandemic with all the restrictions. Right. Can I ask Rick about a are you arguing or your you think that we’re in a phase now we’ve we’ve left the pre COVID world, and we’ve just got to get used to this unusual, you know, unusual things happen? Or maybe we were deluding ourselves pre COVID. And we forgot that things unusual things can happen. What’s your take on that? Should that just be our basic operating principle, you should be careful assuming things are going to be business as usual. There’s a debate about whether in the past we ever it ever made sense to do that. We should expect volatility, we should expect shocks, so to speak. What’s your take on that, Rick?

Rick Yvanovich  22:57

Yeah, I agree with you. It’s the VUCA mindset, isn’t it? Which was penned a long time ago? Yeah, the VUCA as in volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous, so that VUCA mindset. Now, if we had a VUCA mindset with COVID, you know, we’d be highly resilient and agile to it and like whatever, we’d be able to cope with it. But not many of us knew that mindset. And therefore, like, you know, somebody moved all the goalposts. And you know, what do you mean, I can’t go in or out of the country? What do you mean, I can’t walk down the road? Can’t walk my dog or whatever? I mean, this is ridiculous. Yeah. So all of those personal freedoms that we have taken for granted. I think we have got a rude awakening that will okay, this is an unusual situation with we’re taking them away. And there’s huge backlash to that. So anyway, I believe that there is no going back to normal. Okay. That’s why I call it business as unusual. I think we need to embrace the unusual no matter what anybody says COVID is overall whatever you want to class it. Look at what’s happened just this year with a generative AI. Yeah, you know, that took people by surprise. Like, where did this come from? Well, okay, it’s been brewing for more than a decade, guys. But you know, it that that has hit the world by storm. So that’s yet another you could say it’s another shock. Okay. It’s another huge shock on top of all the other shocks that we’ve had. So do you want to call it a shock? Do we want to talk call it technological advancement, okay, because that’s what it is, is just some bright sparks dreaming up some more great, innovative ideas, and it’s called generative AI and the world is embracing it in fits and starts. Okay, so some people are advocating oh this is terrible legislate against it. And other people are, you know, the first movers are embracing it and racing ahead. That’s just version one you could say of generative AI, what’s next? It’s going to keep on coming and coming at us. So how we live, okay? And how we work needs to be adaptive to that. Because we’re either going to get steamrollered and squashed by it, or we are going to be resilient to it, we’re going to be agile to it. And we’re going to embrace it and use it to keep moving forward.

Gene Tunny  25:43

Yeah, well, the take up of it is, is extraordinary. And I mean, all sorts of people are finding uses for it. And I mean, I find, I find it’s helpful, you have to bear in mind that it’s a not very good intern, I think, as Kevin Kelly described it, so you do have to be careful what it gives you, and it says that all you look at it, it doesn’t necessarily give you factual information, if it’s if we’re talking about Chat GPT. And sometimes the images that things is it mid journey, the the generative AI, image creator, but whatever it is, they can do quirky things like creative, you know, give people extra fingers and things like that. So you have to be careful with that as a first start on things. It’s just extraordinary. And I mean, the risk is if you know, we, AI guess you know, if it’s, if it makes it easier for people to commit scams to hack to and then you know, if you think of all of these nefarious or these worst case scenarios where the AI becomes what did Skynet become in Terminator 2 become sentient or became conscious. Takes over a bit. I think that’s probably a bit outlandish. But yeah, I agree with you AI is one of the things we need to that’s a huge, huge development. And yeah, we’ll have we’ll have to see how it all develops. And I mean, potentially, we will need some regulation around it. Anyway, that’s just a comment rather than a question, Rick, but if you did want to respond in any way,

Rick Yvanovich  27:15

It’s true. At the end of the day, AI is a tool. And like any tool, it can be used for different things, you can use it use it for good. And you can use it for not so good. And then unfortunately, there will always be not so good folks around doing not so good things. But we shouldn’t let that overshadow all the wonderful things that AI can actually do. I mean, there’s so many positive applications to it today. And I think as people become more aware of it, and it becomes more readily available and more cheaply available, not just for individuals, but for organisations as well. It can really, really, really help. And at the end of the day, you know, I like your comment that I agree, it’s like a not a very good intern, I would reframe that, I think it’s good to treat it like an intern in that doesn’t know what to do. Okay. So it’s not going to proactively do something until you prompt it. So it really is linked to how good are we in asking it to do what we want it to do? And I think that’s how most people are using the typical AIs that the moment? The next level is already? How do you teach it? And this is even Chat GPT? How do you teach it to respond better? So again, take that intern analogy. How would we teach it to do things better? And if you know how to do that, then it will.

Gene Tunny  29:02

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we’re, it’s just early days. And already, I mean, it’s helpful. I use it to generate the first drafts of shownotes. episode titles and episode descriptions. And yeah, it gives you somewhere to start. So it’s terrific in that regard. Righto, Rick, what about some other things that could be coming at us? Or that could make things unusual? Have you thought about anything? What other possibilities? There are? I mean, climate change. I mean, if you think about some of the extreme scenarios around that, is that something that concerns you anything else?

Rick Yvanovich  29:39

Oh, yes, climate change should concern all of us. And maybe this is something where AI can actually help us. You know, arguably AI is collective wisdom, isn’t it? It’s all our knowledge. We just have to ask it in the right way. So again, it’s it’s a tool and how we use the tool. So for climate change, there are a couple of things. I read an article the other day about what Google is doing with AI and the airlines, one of the biggest contributors to climate change is air travel. And one of the things that causes a negative climate effect is the vapour trails that an aeroplane creates when it’s flying. Okay? And that contributes, I can’t remember the number but it’s some horrendously high number 30 40% of the pollution that it’s creating. So the challenge was, can we use AI to do something about the aeroplanes trajectory to minimise that, okay? Because it’s the aeroplane going through the different, going through the air, and what you know, what type of air is it, you know, how saturated that air is, how warm it is, how cool it is, and it can cause more or less vapour traps. Keep a long story short anyway, they worked it out, okay? And are trialling getting the air, when when they’re flying the plane is to do some minor adjustments to go a little bit higher or a little bit lower to reduce the vapour trail. And in trials, they reduced it by even as much as 50%. And that’s just a little tweak. You know, that’s not very much. Now other things as well. I mean, we know with the Earth getting a lot hotter. Yes, we all want to whack up that aircon and we’re whacking up the aircon to make our environment cooler. But we’re making our environment cooler because it’s hot. Okay, so there’s other tech out there already to try and reduce the heat. Okay, that a building has. And again, using some AI in their analysis of this. So it’s a bit like the paints that they have created. All right, which will help reflect the right type of rays. Okay, the sunlight, which will, they’ve actually worked out that if they use these panels that they’ve created, which reflects the sun, okay, but only certain wavelengths, it actually cools, it’s cooling. Okay, but it doesn’t block out the sun. It’s only certain rays. And again, AI is being used for for things like this. So there’s an awful lot of good that we can use AI but AI sensibly, and obviously, you know, certain industries like the health industry. And I would expect to see huge, huge inroads in that. Things will carry on changing. And I think with advanced tools like AI coming in and becoming more mainstream, I think the pace of especially technological change is going to accelerate. Yeah, now, going back to the business as unusual. And so without that, that’s unusual. You know, technology is all very well and good. And we all have our attitudes on whether technology is for good or not so good. The second part of the book, or the second part of the title, and our business as unusual how to thrive in the new renaissance. Yes, thank you, you have got a book. And in this business, that’s unusual. Well, you got one, and I still have yet to actually physically touch one. That was another usual thing. But the second half of the, you know, the subtitle, how to thrive in the new renaissance? What’s the renaissance got to do with it? Well, I already touched on technology, in the original Renaissance technology was the printing press, arguably today the new renaissance is technology advancement is Yeah, around the internet, the power of that all the apps we have and now generative AI, you know, the original Renaissance was all about exploration, you know, finding new countries, new lands, these days, it’s find the other things. It’s like going deep inside humans and seeing more inside the brain or whatever is going on inside us. Going into the depths of the oceans, but it’s going beyond the Earth, you know, going to the stars. The other thing, the other Biggie was the challenging of authority. So back on the original Renaissance that was the challenging of the church and the power of the church, in today’s Renaissance is the challenging of political structures and countries and how countries are governed. Okay, Okay. And finally, I think this is the most important thing. And but I left it to last even though I should have said at first, the original Renaissance was about humanism, it was about humanism. And the new Renaissance is all still about humans. And it’s about human potential in the light of all these technological advancements that we have. So that’s why I really believe that the human side is super important. And AI is not a human. And there are quirks about humans that make us human that the AI doesn’t have. So I see AI and other technologies it’s a way to augment our potential, we can do a lot more using AI, for example, you yourself said, Hey, you use AI. And it can dream up a couple of topics for you. That’s wonderful. Yeah. Okay. And it saves you a load of time. Yeah. Which makes you more productive, and you have more time to do some other stuff. That’s wonderful.

Gene Tunny  36:01

It takes you away from what do they call the tyranny of the blank page? Which which can make you procrastinate, so it’s good in that regard. I want to ask you a couple of things about what you said there Rick that, that was all, all fascinating. So one of the things you you talked about was government and so that we’re in this new Renaissance , what are you thinking about with with government? I mean, clearly, there are all sorts of people seem to be more unhappy with government than ever before, there are concerns about? Yeah, I mean, the US in particular is, you know, really problematic. And just looking at it from the outside. It doesn’t look good. What’s going on there. Looks like it’s, it’s cooked. It’s very volatile. I mean, what are you thinking with, with government? I mean, do you see changes in the way we we govern ourselves? Is technology part of that story? What are you thinking? What are you thinking there Rick?

Rick Yvanovich  37:05

That’s a big question. Yeah, I’ll put a caveat around that I’m not political in the slightest. Don’t like talking about politics. It’s always going to upset people. But if we go around the world, and we just look at COVID, I guess the jury’s still out, we can say, on which countries handled it better than others. Okay. And who’s making that opinion, anyway, is that us as individuals? I feel that it really doesn’t matter where we were on the planet during COVID. Each of us experienced, whatever we experienced. And the question is, is, were we expecting some kind of benevolent government to know better, and help and support us? Or should we be more independent, and be able to look after ourselves? That’s a big questions and a loaded question as well. My feeling, my feeling is, a lot of people feel that they need to look after themselves better. Because if no one was looking after them during that period, what are they going to do when it happens again? Because at the end of the day, if we go back to the earlier days of the pandemic, there’s some people saying, well, we knew this was going to happen. Okay, it was inevitable. Yeah, the some kind of pandemic of this scale would happen. All right. And maybe the voices have gone silent, or they’ve been drowned in the noise of everything else that is going on in the world. That, okay, we told you so, we told you, it could happen. And it can also happen again, because we’ve really proven that it can happen. So how prepared are we, for the shock? Or the the new challenge of something similar but different happens again? Yeah, you know, how’s that, you know, how are we going to cope with it? So, going back to the business as unusual, so, how is business as unusual, which is the first in a trilogy is written from an owner an owner leader perspective of an organisation. So how can you make your your organisation more resilient to this kind of shock? You know if you were in the hospitality business, tourism business, you got pretty well beaten up during during COVID. There are certain industries which got absolutely flattened. So how can you be more resilient to that in the future? Now the other two books just so you know, that are in the series? The next one I’m I’m writing is the life as unusual, so I’m looking at the individual, you know how that that needs to change, how we view life needs to change. And it’s all of this, the next two books it’s all already in there in the first book, we’re just going into into more detail and taking a different perspective. Okay? Because on the life one, because you know people used to talk about work life balance, and too many hours at work your’e a workaholic, not spending enough time at home. And some people say it’s not a work life balance it’s a life work balance. I argue it’s neither. Balance is balance, balance is balance, you know, who said life and work are the two sides of the balance there, many aspects of the balance that need to be considered. And this is, I think, the the awakening that I sense has happened during the last few years, is people are reflecting on because they had nothing else better to do maybe, or they were forced to do it on what are they doing with their life? Yeah, so the fact that maybe you couldn’t go out, you couldn’t go for your walk, you couldn’t go down the beach, you couldn’t travel, you couldn’t do the things that you wanted to do. And that was taken away for you for a period of time. How important are those things to you? Some of them, you may realise that, oh, it was irrelevant. Others like ah, I really actually need that. Okay, now as those realisations happen, whether it’s what you do, when you’re not working, the past times, and the hobbies that you have, because you might have had to change them to something that is restricted to where you live, the four walls of where you live, rather than being able to go outside, if he had to go outside to do it. I think we’re having to reevaluate it, what the importance of these things are, because that’s for us as individuals. The other thing that happen, that is, is really acute, I find over the pandemic is relationships. Okay, so how was it? You know, I think what, I can’t remember what the statistic was in the US, but I think the number of divorces went through the roof. Okay, because you’re actually stuck with your partner or your family for a prolonged period of time in a restricted space. So in a lot of cases, it didn’t go so well. And in other cases, it went wonderfully. Okay. But another scenario could be, well, what if you were separated from your family? There are many people who have moved, they might have siblings, they might have parents, they may have their own kids in other countries, and they didn’t see them for a long period of time. Now, what does that do to the relationship? I mean, during COVID, I lost my wife for 10 months. You know some people might be going “Yeah, lucky you!” But she was medivacced in early sort of around March 2020. And then they close the borders in Vietnam, so she couldn’t return. Okay, so I had medivacced her to to a third country, which was Singapore. And she was on rehab, because it was a back operation, they were teaching her how to walk again. And, and so she was in the hotel across the road and just had to go in for to see the doctors and all of that to teach her stuff. And then, as things tightened in Singapore, they commandeered the hotel as a quarantine location and kicked her out of the hotel, to another hotel that happened three times. Also, since to learn how to walk again, they used to take her out outside to walk. They had to stop doing that she wasn’t allowed to go into the hospital because she, she’s an outpatient, she’s not allowed to do that. So she was stuck there for about four months before I managed to move her to her country of origin, which happens to be Switzerland. So she managed to get in there. So for it took me several months to get the right permits when they allow people with the right permits to return to Vietnam. So it took me 10 months to get her back. And my daughter was at University at the time, and yet another country. So for for a long period of time, I had my daughter and my wife in two other countries and I was here with my with my son. And by the time I connected my son and my daughter again, we’ve got got us all back in the same country. They hadn’t seen each other for two years. That’s pretty unusual. And I guess in that case, well, our whole idea of the relationship changes the whole idea. I mean, this Zoom. I remember we had a bunch of interns, because we’re big on internships. And our interns come from overseas. So we brought them over from overseas, and they will work in Ho Chi Minh City. And we used to take interns with a big cohort from Denmark. So we had about anything from about 10 to 15 of them at any point in time. And their government recalled them all. You know, they gave them advice, hey, come back home, come back to Denmark, okay. And they were arranging, like other governments, Australia did the same. You know, they’re arranging flights to bring their country people back home. And we did have some went and some didn’t. But going back to the, to the interns, in this period of time, where some of them moved back, and some of them didn’t, there were there were some quarantines as well, because some of them happened to have got COVID. So they’re put into quarantine. And, and we started doing these zoom calls, to check in on people on a regular basis. And the thing that really hammered it home into me is one day, one session we were having, an intern, turned around and said, these calls are my lifeline, do you realise you were the first people outside of quarantine, that I’ve spoken to this week. You know, it’s, you know, things that we can’t imagine, things that we might get from the history books, or, you know, our great great great grandma parents or whatever, who tell us them old stories of the hardships when they were young, things that that we would think would never ever happen to anyone we would ever know, in this day and age, especially in the more developed worlds that we live in, can actually happen to us.

Gene Tunny  46:57

Very true. Very true.

Rick Yvanovich  46:59

Things will remain unusual.

Gene Tunny  47:01

Yes, Rick. So that was the second book. So you said so your first is business as unusual, then life as unusual. What’s the third one going to be?

Rick Yvanovich  47:09

Work as unusual.

Gene Tunny  47:11

Work as unusual? Got it.

Rick Yvanovich  47:12

I’m leaving that to last because the jury’s out and I’m not really too sure where the dust will settle? Because it hasn’t settled yet. It really hasn’t settled yet.

Gene Tunny  47:21

Yeah, I agree with you on that. Now, before we wrap up, I’d just like to ask, What do you think of the key takeaways for organisations or for CEOs or, you know, managers reading business as unusual? What are you think of the major takeaways for them? Top two or three. Are you able to summarise it in that way, however many you think are the most important.

Rick Yvanovich  47:51

Yeah, I think it’s really around a core belief that I hold really dear, is, I believe that every one of us has the potential to be the architect of change. Now, we live by all these weird technological, and non technological transformations that are happening. And our task, our challenge is not just to keep up and exist, but to actively shape the path forward. Okay. And every single day, our actions, whether they’re big or small, shape our future, because our action is a choice we choose to do, or choose to not do. And therefore each one of us needs to remember, we are our own brand. And every single one of these choices, every single one of these decisions we make is part of the unique story that makes us human, that makes us us, or makes me me and makes youyou, okay, how we react, how we adapt, and how we innovate in the face of change will define not only your story, but your legacy. So that’s, that’s the background to it. So to reflect on the takeaways that I believe that are in the book, because the book is it gives you a framework. So you can shape your life in any way that you wish. But I give you a framework. And within that framework, you know, the framework uses the metaphor of a castle. And within the framework, I’m just hitting you with a shedload of tools. These are all the tools that I use myself. But a lot of the tools that I use are a synthesis and multiple other tools. So I just say here all the tools are a bunch of tools, you know, yeah, five tools, try them all and find out which one resonates. So going back to your original question, you know, I want people to remember that we’re not just a participant in today’s ever changing world, we’re the architect. And as architects, we are shaping the course of our own lives, our own careers, and the world around us. So I encourage all of us as individuals. And if you, you know, if you have more impact, like you’re the business owner or a business leader, I encourage you all to embrace the change, but define it, rather than just adapt to it. So be that catalyst in this in your own business as unusual world.

Gene Tunny  50:39

Yeah, absolutely. And, yeah, expect the unusual, I think I mean, that’s what I would be. I would be saying, Yeah, you’ve got to get across the new technology, so you don’t get left behind. You’ve got to stay as alert and as healthy and fit as possible to be able to make sure you’re, you can play the game as best you can. Yeah. Because I think you’re right. I mean, I think we are in this business as unusual world, just the extraordinary amount of change we’ve been seeing. It’s absolutely. Rick this has been great. Any final thoughts before we conclude?

Rick Yvanovich  51:18

Yeah, I, I, of course, encourage the people to go out, go out and get the book.

Gene Tunny  51:27

Absolutely I’ll put a link in the show notes. Yeah.

Rick Yvanovich  51:30

And, but more important to that is, you know, change transformation starts with each of us. As individuals, it’s, it’s ourselves that has to decide to change, or not, okay. And as we change, we transform because that’s what transformation is, that’s change, you can’t go back after you’ve changed and once the, once the caterpillar is a butterfly, it can’t become a caterpillar again, it has transformed, okay. And this is really important. And I think the journey is only beginning. So I’m really, really curious to hear about your journeys. So as as your listeners embrace this, they try it out. I really encourage them to, you know let Gene know, let me know, reach out to us. And tell us about your journey, because I’m sure they’re going to be absolutely fascinating.

Gene Tunny  52:21

Yeah, that’s, that’s good. That’s a good point recommend. I’d be interested. If you’re listening, and you’ve got thoughts on or how things have become unusual for you and how you’re responding that would be that would be very useful and yeah to the extent that you are that you have adjusted, you’re adapting then. Yes. And some thoughts on that would be great. So yeah, Rick, I think that’s a really good spot to conclude. And I’d like to thank you for, for your time for your, your thoughts on business as unusual. And for the book, which does Yeah, it. I think you’re onto something here with business as unusual. And you’ve got some good, good tips and good tricks, good bits of advice in that that book. So good work on that. And I think yeah, I think the idea of doing a trilogy is terrific. And yeah, I learned a lot from the conversation, learned about your experience in Vietnam, during the pandemic, and just how disruptive that was. And also, that’s the info about Google and AI with the flights and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. I’ll find that online and I’ll put a link in the show notes below. That was really, really neat. So, again, Rick Yvanovich, thanks so much for your time. I really enjoyed the conversation.

Rick Yvanovich  53:42

Gene thank you, too. I’d like to express my gratitude for for allowing me on your podcast today. It’s it’s been a fascinating conversation, some great questions. I hope our listeners have enjoyed it as much as I have. And to all your listeners, all our listeners, I really appreciate your time and attention. And just like Gene, I look forward to hearing from some of you from learning from your experience, and perhaps giving us the opportunity to share more in depth future discussions. Thank you again, Gene, and to all our listeners for this wonderful exchange. Until next time, goodbye

Gene Tunny  54:22

Righto thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

55:09

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey, head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

How to improve housing affordability and why the Greedflation thesis is wrong w/ Simon Cowan, CIS – EP203

Host Gene Tunny and Simon Cowan from the Centre for Independent Studies discuss housing affordability and greedflation in the CIS’s Sydney HQ. They delve into recent articles written by Simon on these topics and explore the factors contributing to unaffordable housing (e.g. zoning and other supply restrictions) and why the greedflation thesis is wrong. 

Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple Podcasts and Spotify.

About this episode’s guest: Simon Cowan

Simon Cowan is Research Director at the CIS. He is a leading commentator on policy and politics, with a regular column in the Canberra Times newspaper, frequent interviews on Sky and the ABC, and multiple appearances before parliamentary committees discussing the budget, citizenship, taxation and health policy. He has written extensively on government spending and fiscal policy, with a specific focus on welfare and superannuation policy. He earlier work focused on government industry policy, defence and regulation.

His latest work includes Attitudes to a post-Covid Australia and Millennials and Super: the case for voluntary superannuation. Some of his other works include a co-authored report on pensions, a deep dive into the Universal Basic Income, and a 2012 piece arguing that Australia should acquire nuclear submarines from the Americans.

What’s covered in EP203

  • The problem with housing affordability. (4:56)
  • High property prices and housing affordability. (10:02)
  • Should we cap migration to improve housing affordability? (14:24)
  • The role of public/social housing. (19:12)
  • Shared equity schemes. (24:15)
  • Home ownership as a key milestone on the way to retirement. (29:09)
  • Local government regulations and housing affordability. (35:06)
  • The Greedflation hypothesis and why it’s wrong. (39:04)

Links relevant to the conversation

Simon’s Canberra Times articles on housing affordability and greedflation:

The Coalition can create generational voting change by tackling housing affordability – The Centre for Independent Studies 

‘Greedflation’ myth hides real causes of inflation – The Centre for Independent Studies 

Images from the Bill Leak room including a poem from Sir Les Patterson (i.e. Barry Humphries):

Sir Les with Bill Leak.jpg 

Sir Les’s poem about Bill Leak part 1.jpg 

Sir Les’s poem about Bill Leak part 2.jpg 

Past Economics Explored episode discussing wage-price spiral mentioned by Gene:

https://economicsexplored.com/2022/06/14/stagflation-be-alert-not-alarmed-ep143-transcript/

Transcript of Q&A session following Phil Lowe’s speech in Brisbane in July 2023 during which Gene asked the RBA Governor about Greedflation:

https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2023/sp-gov-2023-07-12-q-and-a-transcript.html

Transcript: How to improve housing affordability and why the Greedflation thesis is wrong w/ Simon Cowan, CIS – EP203

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. This was then looked at by a human, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to pick up the bits otters might have misheard. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny  00:06

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory, evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Thanks for tuning into the show. Today, I have the pleasure of catching up with my colleague at the Centre for Independent Studies, Simon Cowan. We’re in the CIS offices on Macquarie Street in Sydney. And we’re going to be chatting about some recent work that Simon’s done on housing affordability and greedflation, Simon, so good to catch up with you.

Simon Cowan  01:06

Yeah. Welcome to the Bill Leak Room here at the CIS, our little office here in Macquarie Street. It’s fantastic to have you here in our facilities with our totally real plants and our wall of photos.

Gene Tunny  01:19

Yeah, well, it’s great this room. So Bill Leak was a famous Australian cartoonist, and there’s a there’s actually a poem about Bill Leak from Les Patterson, one of Barry Humphries characters. Yeah, just it’s terrific. So I might put a link in the show notes. I’ll make sure I take a photo of that before I go. But yes, Simon, you’ve written some great pieces recently, they were both published in Canberra Times on housing affordability and greedflation both topical issues and I thought I’d be good if we could chat about those.

Simon Cowan 01:40

Yeah, for sure.

Gene Tunny 01:43

Your piece on housing affordability was in the Canberra Times on third of July 2023. “The Coalition can create generational voting change by tackling housing affordability.” I’d like to start off by asking you about the context of that piece because CIS Centre for Independent Studies, it’s a non-partisan Think Tank. The way it’s pitched, it’s pitched as how the Coalition can create generational voting change. Now I know this is this relates to some recent research. Could you tell us a bit about the context of that piece, please?

Simon Cowan  02:29

Yeah, sure. So one of my other colleagues, a man by the name of Matt Taylor who’s actually working out of our Canberra facilities, we’re stretching our tentacles across the country with Brisbane and Canberra and Sydney. He did some work that looked at the prevalence of centre right voting patterns amongst younger people, in particular, millennials and Gen Z. And right. And now in Australian politics, the Coalition vote is a proxy for for the centre right. And, you know, to the extent that the Coalition embodies what you might describe as classical Liberal values and policies, then they’re, you know a proxy of some sorts for classical Liberal voting patterns amongst younger people. And the concern that we had as an organisation and I think it’s been heightened by Matt’s research, is that it’s not just that we’re seeing, you know, that traditional voting pattern of younger voters voting left and older voters voting, right, but that each generation that comes into the electorate is more likely to vote for left wing parties, so not just Labour, but increasingly, the Greens. And for Gen Z, in particular, what we’re seeing is, they’re actually moving further left, compared to the average voter as they get older, which is an unusual pattern, both in Australia and globally. So millennials are moving to the right, they’re doing so at a much slower rate than previous generations. They’re starting from further left, Gen Z started from way further left than the millennials and are becoming more left wing. So the end result of this is that we’re seeing a roughly 65% of that younger cohort is voting for left wing parties, roughly equally Labour and the Greens and that the centre right is attracting for Gen Z in particular, as little as sort of 10% of the vote. Now, our issue isn’t so much for the Coalition’s political fortunes, I’m sure that that’s a concern for them. But for us, it’s to the extent that the Coalition is more likely to implement classical Liberal reforms than the Labour Party, which I think is a reasonable deduction. To the extent that’s true. The fact that young people have no interest in centre right politics and therefore classical Liberal ideas is a real concern of ours.

Gene Tunny  04:56

Okay. So is part of the reason that Gen Z has these left wing views to the extent they do, is that related in part to this issue of housing affordability, the fact that younger people aren’t able to purchase their own homes, to the same extent that previous generations, particularly baby boomers, and to a lesser extent, Gen. Gen X, were able to, is that part of the story?

Simon Cowan  05:24

I think that’s a very big part of the story and Matt’s now working on some more research that will look into that issue more, more specifically around what the actual triggers of that, that are. But I think there’s definitely a problem with millennials and Gen Z, in particular, around housing affordability. The issue isn’t just, and this is, it’s a very important issue. It’s not just that they can’t afford to buy a home, it’s that the prospects of them ever being able to afford to buy a home, and ever being able to move out of that cycle that that sort of rental cycles seems very remote to them. So, you know, they’re not just moving into the market later than their parents, for example, there’s a real fear amongst Gen Z in particular, that they won’t ever get into that point, that they’ll be basically trapped as renters for the rest of their lives. And a number of people have sort of made this observation in the past. If you’ve got nothing to conserve, there’s no reason to vote conservative.

Gene Tunny  06:19

Yeah. And what do you think of that concern Simon, do you think that’s a legitimate concern on their part?

Simon Cowan  06:23

I think in part, it certainly is. There are some people who will be rentals forever, probably more so than was true in previous generations. I mean, if you look at the sort of Baby Boomer and then the previous generation to them as well, almost 95% of that generation ended up buying home at some point during their their lifecycle, once you get into retirement, you see that almost everyone, there’s sort of a core of 10 to 15% of people who who don’t own a home, in retirement, most of the current cycle of retirees own their home, the vast majority of them own it without a mortgage. So far the trend is increasingly people coming into retirement with mortgages, rather than having paid off that during their working life, I think we’ll also see, though, a generation of people, a larger percentage of them will be renting for far longer. And the issue there is, at least in part around the enormous difficulty of saving enough money to get into that first rung of the housing market. And also, you know, those affordable entry level houses are now, so much further away from the CBD of the city, that if you’re someone who works in, you know, if you’re working in the city, it’s very difficult for you to have a young family and commute from two and a half hours away each day. And that option, like if you’re gonna buy a home, you have to, you know, you’re now looking at that two hour commute each way, that becomes a very difficult prospect for a lot of people.

Gene Tunny  07:53

So you’re talking about in Sydney, there’ll be people who are doing that in Sydney.

Simon Cowan  07:57

Yeah, absolutely, so if you go back a couple generations a long commute was was sort of from what is now the sort of almost not necessarily the inner ring of suburbs, but there was a sort of middle density ring of suburbs around, you know, the Canterburys, the Bankstowns, etc, that were all, you know, still 30 or 40 minutes commute from the city, but the prices in those suburbs are now well beyond the entry level, you’ve got to go another 20 kilometres from the CBD before you start to get to places where people can afford to buy houses in that entry level of, you know, even as far as sort of Blacktown and places like that you’re seeing median house price is well over a million dollars. So that becomes very difficult and you end up with a situation like we’ve seen in London, for example and other places, too, as far as I’m aware, people who do essential jobs that are not particularly well paid, you know, your teachers and your nurses in inner city areas can’t afford to live within commuting distance of the places where they work. And that then becomes a real problem for society. If you can’t get teachers for your school, because they can’t live within two hours of your school, you’ve got no teachers.

Gene Tunny  09:10

Yeah, this is the key worker problem isn’t it that they talk about, you know, the key workers can’t find affordable places to live…

Simon Cowan  09:18

There’s always a slight risk that some of this is overstated, right? It’s not it’s not an absolute catastrophe. But things have changed enough that it’s having a significant impact on voting patterns and that’s probably where we’re at now. If things continue to get worse, if the trends that we’re seeing of you know, systemic underdevelopment, particularly in the parts of Sydney where people want to live. If those trends continue, then things will definitely get far worse. Right now we’ve got a problem, not a catastrophe. But there’s a real problem and it’s not yet clear to me that particularly the centre right, there’s been a sufficient level of engagement with this problem, that they’re willing to look at solutions that might actually work.

Gene Tunny  10:02

Okay, okay. Australia does have high property prices relative to median income, we must be one of the highest in the world are we are, you know, particularly for Sydney and Melbourne that I’ve seen some of those ratios, I might dig them up and put them in the show notes. But yeah…

Simon Cowan  10:19

Yeah we’re top, so regularly, so Sydney, Melbourne in particular have been regularly in the top 10 least affordable cities in the world, at various points other Australian cities have snuck in there. So I think at one point, Perth managed to make its way in at the height of the mining boom that it was, you know, one of the most unaffordable cities, so New Zealand has a similar problem, as well, around that, that issue of affordability comparable to us. And then I mean, you’ve got a lot of American cities, and then your Tokyos and Londons as well.

Gene Tunny  10:49

Yeah. But what’s extraordinary is like, based on what you were just saying then, it’s not just, you know, there are some exclusive suburbs in Sydney here say out at Double Bay or out in the Eastern suburbs, and you’ve got places worth 10s of millions of dollars, but this is, you’re paying a lot of money just for property in, in what was traditionally a working class area. I mean, over a million dollars, whatever your…

Simon Cowan  11:12

Yeah, absolutely and places like you know, the Northern Beaches, suburbs, which are a fair way from Sydney. And, and we’re never I mean, they’re not they weren’t poor areas, by any means, right. But they weren’t, they weren’t the areas that the elite and rich of Sydney lived in. But now, many of the homes in that area are way outside the price range for a young family, particularly if you’re in a situation where one of your partners isn’t able to work full time. Or if someone’s in a job where you know, they’re not in a professional capacity and being paid six figure salary, it’s really hard for them. And the thing that becomes even harder, it’s largely about getting over that that initial hurdle of having to save, you know, you need 20% deposit for a million dollar home, you got to save $200,000 of after tax income. When you know we’ve got cost of living spiralling out of control at the moment, we’ve got, you know, 11% of your income’s being diverted into retirement savings. And you’ve got to somehow find $200,000 plus of post tax income. It’s yeah, I mean, it’s a real challenge.

Gene Tunny  12:13

Yeah, yeah. And what do you think’s caused this housing affordability problem we have in Australia Simon?

Simon Cowan  12:19

So the evidence on this is actually really clear, despite the fact that a lot of people really didn’t want to accept that this was true. It is abundantly clear from the work that my colleague Peter Tulip, and others have done that the issue is overwhelmingly restrictions on supply. So people want to say that it’s about demand, it’s about immigrants, it’s about negative gearing, capital gains, they have very minor impacts on price what’s having by far the biggest impact on price is the restrictions on bringing new properties to market, on redeveloping existing properties, it’s zoning and taxes and government restrictions that are aimed to stop people developing, and in Sydney, in particular, and a number of suburbs around the city. But also on the major arterial train lines, you’ve got councils that are simply refusing to allow development. And my colleague has highlighted some of them have massively undershot housing targets. But we see time and time again, things like heritage restrictions and zoning restrictions. And, and you know, even you can’t build high density housing around train lines. If you can’t build high density train on train lines, where are you going to build it? And the answer is, well, for them, at least build it way out in Western Sydney, don’t put it anywhere near where I live. And that attitude is pervasive in the eastern suburbs, in inner West and where I’m currently based in the North Shore, some of the councils out there are actively and very hostile to development of any kind.

Gene Tunny  13:52

Right. Okay. On immigration, do you think that what doesn’t have a major impact on housing affordability? Because that’s one of the things that people are concerned about, because we’ve had a record level of net overseas migration in Australia of 400,000. And there are concerns that, like, it’s just, we should be slowing that down while we let the housing stock catch up, on infrastructure catch up. Do you have any thoughts on that level of immigration we have at the moment?

Simon Cowan  14:24

Yes so my take on this, and I’ll be the first to admit there is, there are differing views on classical liberal amounts of immigration, but for me, personally, I would have almost uncapped skilled migration, I would be happy to take as many skilled migrants as we can get, because I think the economic benefits of skilled migration outweigh the costs. Now, the flip side of that is that we have to provide sufficient infrastructure and build sufficient houses to have those people, give those people somewhere to live. But I think you go, you’ve got it completely backwards if your approach is we’re going to stop migration because we can’t build fast enough when we could build faster, the roadblock, the handbrake on house prices is coming from that refusal to allow development, trying to take some of the pressure off so that councils don’t have to fix their obvious contribution to this seems like just the wrong way to go about it to me, I’d rather have more great migrants and way more housing, and I think you can do it that way. And the economic benefits of doing that way outweigh the costs of it. One of my other colleagues a few years ago, did some work around the sort of, what are the outcomes for skilled migrants in Australia? On average skilled migrants are they earn a slightly higher income, they pay higher taxes, they’re more likely to own a home, they’re more likely to be married, they’re more likely to have kids than the average person. So there’s a there’s a benefit to society beyond just the economic benefit of having more skilled migrants. There’s an issue around housing supply, I would fix the issue around housing supply rather than trying to create alternatives to remove some of that pressure.

Gene Tunny  16:02

Yeah, gotcha. Okay. In your article in the Canberra Times, you wrote that Labour’s signature housing affordability policies have huge problems. So Labour being the federal Labour government led by Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, first locking future generations into renting their homes from union-controlled super funds. What’s going on there, Simon? What’s, how to, how would the labour government’s policies lead to that outcome? And what’s the, what’s your concern there?

Simon Cowan  16:40

Yeah, so for long time, Labour was convinced that the issue was, was greedy landlords and negative gearing and capital gains. And Gene, you did some fantastic work for us on that issue, in fact, I think you did a an analysis, not necessarily for CIS, but previously that looked at the impact that those capital gains and negative gearing policies had on housing affordability and found it was what like 4%, almost nothing. Yeah. So for a long time, Labour believed that that was the issue, and then started to come around to thinking about this as a supply side problem. But the solutions that they have, they have two main supply side initiatives. And there’s been some more movement more recently. So this is at least as positive, but their main initiatives were: one they were going to encourage institutional superannuation investors to build residential properties for rent. So that meant in practice, I think it meant that they would incentivize the large super funds, which are overwhelmingly controlled, they’re overwhelmingly industry super funds, which have a 50% union 50% Business control. But overwhelmingly, those funds would be then encouraged, incentivized, to invest in and build rental properties for lease. And the other policy was around building a whole bunch more public and social housing. So rather than allowing, having, they’ve identified the right market block, but instead of removing that block and allowing the market to function, their solution is how do we use government incentives and government money to build additional supply? It just seems extraordinary to me that you would create a situation where individuals couldn’t use their own superannuation money to build their own home, but their super fund could use their super money to build a home for them to rent. And that just I mean, one of the reasons why this policy, I think, has been dis-emphasised by Labour is that there’s almost no one who actually wants that outcome. Super funds don’t want to do it, because they’re seeing the the noises around rent controls and increasing tenant rights and think this is a bad investment for my Super fund. And people are like, well why would I want to rent from my super fund with my money? Why can’t I just use my money to buy my own home? So I think that that policy has just got so many flaws to it, that even Labour’s now started to sort of move away from that.

Gene Tunny  19:07

Ok so they’ve moved away from that, but they’ve, they’re investing more in social housing and it sounds like well, reading your article, you’ve got concerns about social housing as the solution, would you be able to go into that please?

Simon Cowan  19:21

Yeah, you’re gonna get me started on talking about social housing. So look, there is a role for public and social housing, but it’s not the role that the government keeps pushing for it, right. So social housing is very important for people who are temporarily homeless, particularly people say who are fleeing domestic violence, they need emergency accommodation in the short term, and they don’t necessarily have access to funds that would allow them to rent a property go through, you know, the hoops that you need to go through to get a rental property. So you’ve got, you know, people who are in, fleeing violence you’ve got people say, who have, you know, sort of sickness or mental illness issues that need accommodation, you’ve got disability support accommodation, those, those are completely appropriate uses of social and public housing. Now, the difference between social and public housing, public housing is government funded social housing is funded by not for profits. What the government is talking about, though, is providing long term government funded accommodation to people. Basically, along the sort of a line you’re seeing in Britain, where you have a council house for decades, and that’s your home and you don’t own it, you are given it by the government. The problem with that is that it’s a terribly inefficient way of providing support for people who need rental accommodation and are on low income. So when you compare, providing a government house to providing, say, rent assistance through Social Security, it’s way more efficient to provide social security. And it’s way more equitable. Because what you have with government housing, as we have here, there’s a 10 year waiting list. And often, people don’t move on that waiting list at all. So you have people who get they spend years on a waiting list, waiting for free housing, they’re disincentivized to take actions that would get them off that list, especially if they’ve got to the top because if they go back on the list, they go at the bottom, you have people who are living in these public houses who are disincentivized, from getting out of public housing, because if they again, if they you know, they take a job that makes them eligible for public housing, and they lose that job in six months, they go to the bottom of the 10 year waiting list. So and then you also have the the way that rent is structured in public housing, where it’s a percentage of income rather than a fixed amount. So the more money you earn, it’s an effective marginal tax rate of 25%, you lose 25 cents of each dollar extra dollar you earn to your public house rent, rather than the rent being a certain fixed amount a month.

Gene Tunny  21:59

I did not know that. Is that how they do it in New South Wales?

Simon Cowan 22:02

Yeah, yeah, well look I…

Gene Tunny 22:03

I’ll have to check what they do in Queensland, other states…

Simon Cowan  22:06

Social housing again I mean it’s all different, but one of our recommendations, we looked at this when they were putting up the last sort of big round of public housing. And one of the things is that, and it’s designed to make it more affordable, it’s 20% of whatever 25% of whatever your income is. So if you’re on, you know, if you’re on Newstart, then 25% of that’s very low. But the problem is when you then start working and earning money, you’ve got an another marginal tax rate from your accommodation.

Gene Tunny  22:32

Yeah. And without, I don’t want to stig, stigmatise or be critical of anyone who’s who’s living in social housing, but because, you know, obviously, there are people are doing it tough and they’re trying to do the best they can. There are a lot of social problems with social housing is that right?

Simon Cowan  22:49

Yeah especially in the, and again, this has experienced the United Kingdom in particular, that social housing estates, particularly where a lot of public housing is clustered together, you tend to find a lot of antisocial behaviour, you find a lot of other problems, there’s a higher rate of crime. And so what you have is a situation where it’s not particularly pleasant for, for people living in social housing but it’s also, you know, a big disincentive for people to live near social housing. And then you have the effect where if there is a cluster of public housing in a particular place that affects property values that people who live around that by so no one wants, public housing, especially not clusters of public housing, anywhere in their suburb. Yet again, you know, we have this disincentive for development, people want the public housing somewhere else. And then in Sydney, we had a particular issue where, and this is largely a legacy issue, we had public housing that was worth just an extraordinary amount of money by virtue of where it was, you know, in The Rocks, which it’s in the, right in the centre of Sydney with views of the harbour. There’s public housing that had been there for 100 and something years, and each of those houses was worth millions of dollars. So you know, you had this this issue of well, do we, we’re giving away this public housing to someone for basically no money, why don’t we sell their public housing and build, you know, a lot more with with the money that it came from? So you’ve got a whole bunch of problems. I mean, fundamentally, I think the issue with this is if, if the issue that you’re looking at is housing affordability, rather than the need for temporary accommodation or something else, if the issue is housing affordability, you’re always going to be better off allowing the market to develop property than trying to do it by government. And there’s, and there’s a filtering effect of adding supply at any point in the market reduces prices of at every point in the market. Because if you think about this logically, even if you put the supply right at the very top end, the people who are buying those $10 million apartments are selling their $8 million apartments and the the effect of that sort of filters down all the way through the market, so adding supply anywhere, increases supply everywhere.

Gene Tunny  25:06

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.

Female speaker  25:11

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost-benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.

Gene Tunny  25:41

Now back to the show.

And what about this this idea of Shared Equity? Labour or the government has a scheme a Shared Equity scheme, there’s concerns about how wide a coverage it is? I mean, it seems like small numbers relative to the total, total need out there. But what do you think of these Shared Equity schemes where the government effectively owns part of your property don’t they? Would you be able to take us through that, please?

Simon Cowan  26:09

Yeah so, there’s a I mean, so part of the problem with a lot of these schemes is that they’re designed to be so small, they can’t have an impact in the sort of aggregate level, because the number of caps are limited. And whenever you see a government policy like this, and it’s, it’s limited to a small number of people, you know, that it’s not a good deal for the taxpayers as a general rule. But so you do have that situation where the government would, in some instances, it’d be providing a portion of the deposit. So that the individual who meets a certain criteria jumps through the right hoops in order to be eligible for the scheme can can apply for a loan and basically buy a property with as little as sort of 5% equity. Shared Equity schemes don’t have a fantastic hit track record in Australia. And it’s not so much around the issue of the deposits. But one of the things that we looked at at the other end of the market was was how you could get into equity release schemes for pensioners. So you’ve got an issue with a percentage about sort of one in five people in the age pension are very, very cash poor and very, very asset rich, and most of them, the main asset they have is property. So when we looked at this 5% or so of people who were on the full rate of the aged pension had more than one and a half million dollars in home equity. But what they didn’t have was an ability to release any of that equity in order to fund their lifestyle. So my interest in in Shared Equity comes much more. And again, there’s, there’s a much bigger tradition of this in the UK, where banks and financial institutions will take over a portion of equity for your home and use that to provide an income or a lump sum to people. So it’s not that Shared Equity itself is a bad idea, where it becomes a bad idea where you’ve got government effectively taking the risk for marginal borrowers. And, you know, people who can’t actually afford to borrow the loans that they’re taking, not just they can’t afford the deposit, but they can’t actually afford the loan. And what we saw in America in the lead up to the financial crisis was exactly these sorts of schemes, schemes where the government tried to manipulate the criteria for eligibility for home loans to effectively give a certain group of people a greater chance of buying a home. And the end result of any of that sort of manipulation around loans was the potential for government to bear, the government to bear losses in relation to home equity. So, you know, it’s a small scheme, it won’t have a big impact for that reason, but it does expose the government to risk of default, which seems like a bad way of doing things.

Gene Tunny  28:52

One thing I should ask Simon is, we’re presuming that the ideal is that people end up in their own home by the time that they’ve retired, would you be able to expand on why that is such an important thing? Or why that’s such a desirable policy goal, please?

Simon Cowan  29:09

Yeah, sure. I’d bring it forward in time. I actually think that, you know, there’s some sort of key milestones in people’s lives, you get married, and then you have kids and buying a home’s one of those milestones and ideally, you know, the ideal situation, I think, is you want to be having that in the middle of those two things. So you know, you you get married and you buy a home together and you have kids and you raise kids in your own home. And that’s sort of the sort of model of of family life that was exceptionally prevalent in Australia and I think it’s, it’s one of those sort of, again, you know, talk about conservatives and for a second, but you know, when you’re, you’re married with kids in your own home, you’ve got something to conserve, you’ve got a stake in society, you’ve got, you know, roots and values there. From a retirement perspective, though, it’s, it’s even more important because Australia’s retirements system was built around a couple of specific ideas. And so one of those is voluntary savings, which is or involuntary savings, superannuation, but another, another one is the age pension, obviously government funded income. But the biggest one in Australia in particular was around the idea that you would own your own home. So the Australian retirement system is actually modelled around people owning a home in retirement without a mortgage. And that takes care of a lot of their basic needs. And what we’ve seen consistently and you know, what we see now in particular, the group of people who are struggling the most in retirement, are overwhelmingly people who don’t have voluntary savings, they don’t have any superannuation left, but they also don’t own their home. And they’re the people who are most risk of genuine poverty in retirement, it’s if you don’t own your home, and you’re dependent on the age pension, and you’re renting in old age, overwhelmingly, that’s a group of people who are right at the bottom in terms of income and living standards. And so, you know, whatever our retirement system is built around this idea that you’re going to own your own home in retirement and own it without a mortgage, then the system has to actually facilitate people being able to do that. And right now we’re starting to see that disconnect happening. More and more people are entering retirement with mortgages. Over time, you’ll see more and more people entering retirement who don’t have a home at all.

Gene Tunny  31:22

Yeah. And what’s really worrying is you’ve got all of these people who are then at risk of homelessness. And you know, people living living in cars or worst case…

Simon Cowan  31:34

Yeah, so one of the biggest, one of the biggest demographics of homelessness, and aside from, and this is sort of the broader definition of homelessness, right like because the the you think traditionally people who live on the streets, are far more likely to be sort of middle aged men, but one of the biggest groups of the biggest demographics of homelessness is actually older single women. And overwhelmingly, that’s the issue. It’s really, you know, they’re dependent on unemployment benefits or pensions, but they don’t own a home. They may have been married, their husbands died, they don’t own their home, they’ve got no income. That’s the group that’s most at risk of poverty and homelessness, was one of them at least. And it’s a big issue.

Gene Tunny  32:12

Yeah, yeah. Okay. What about tapping into your own Super? I think you were alluding to this before. What are your thoughts on that, Simon?

Simon Cowan  32:21

So one of my colleagues that sort of looks at that issue, and his view is that what you should use super for is guaranteeing a loan, rather than necessarily being able to tap into it. One of the issues with allowing people to take money from Super is that it is effectively just increasing demand. So you do have a, you do have a slight demographic shift, in terms of who is able to buy properties, if you can, you know, you can withdraw from Super to buy your own home, but you can’t withdraw from Super for an investment property, you do slightly shift who owns property at that point, just in terms of the simple should you be able to take money on your super to buy own home? Yes, because it’s your money. It’s your money, it’s your savings, you’d be better off in retirement, if you could do it, will it solve the problem that it’s trying to solve? Probably not without something else attached to it. And that really has to be around sort of that supply side reform. And, and it doesn’t have to be, I mean talk about supply side reform, it doesn’t have to be the cratering of house prices, what it needs to be is more flexibility in what people can do with their own property. And when you increase flexibility for owners, and you increase flexibility for people who want to buy, you have a more dynamic and more effective and more efficient market, and that’s better for everyone. It’s not just the case that one group has to win and one group has to lose.

Gene Tunny  33:43

Yeah. Now with, with what the federal government is proposing to do is one positive thing that they’re proposing around targets for, or they’re trying to incentivize the states to encourage development, is that, am I geting that right?

Simon Cowan  33:59

Yes, so this is one of our recommendations, it’s been picked up. And it’s it’s got a, you know, it’s a policy tradition that’s been around for a long time, which is the federal government has all the money, but not necessarily all the levers. So they incentivize states to make good policy by, you know, giving them either withholding grants from them, if they don’t do the right thing, or giving them extra money, if they do, and in this instance, they’re talking about, you know, states that meet housing targets should be able to access additional government money. And that makes sense, right? If you’re building more houses, more money for infrastructure is probably right. But if there’s a challenge, it’s that a lot of the levers and the need for incentive isn’t even necessarily at the state government level. It’s actually the local government level. And so, you know, we’ve seen a number of states, I think, both in Victoria and New South Wales that appreciate the issue around supply and housing affordability, but they’ve been unwilling to impose the requirements on local government level, where all the incentives work the other way. So, we think it’s a good policy. We think it’s something that we’ve recommended, but it won’t be as straightforward perhaps as it seems.

Gene Tunny  35:06

Yeah, you’re right about that. I mean, a lot of the problems are at that local government level. So in Queensland where I’m from, some of the places where we’ve been able to get the high density, where we’ve been able to get more people in, it’s, it’s areas that the state government zone priority development areas, so formerly light industrial areas around West End or, or Newstead so the state government’s been trying to do its best but the Brisbane City Council goes and bans town, townhouses in you know, a lot of suburbs, there’s all these character, all these character protection, and anytime someone…

Simon Cowan  35:39

Yeah, well heritage is increasingly become, basically an anti development scam, unfortunately. And you can look on Twitter and you can find fantastic examples of things that are heritage listed. Like there was a, there’s a heritage listed electrical substations and heritage listed broken fences, and it’s like, rusting machinery, heritage listed car parks, I mean, there’s not actually any historical value in a lot of this stuff. What it is, though, it’s a valuable as a foil or as a stop to development.

Gene Tunny  36:11

And it seems to be a lot of grounds for people to oppose developments, whether it’s, ah there’s, there won’t be enough car parking, there won’t, you know, it’ll affect local traffic and there’s all sorts of grounds for objection. So yeah, absolutely. agree there.

Simon Cowan  36:24

I tell you what’s interesting, just to leave this point, I think is in New Zealand, what we saw was that they basically changed the zoning rules that allowed you to have medium density as a right, so that you didn’t actually need Council permission to go up to sort of three or four storeys from, from a freestanding dwelling. And that resulted in a massive increase in, in the sort of developments that would be allowed that council used to say no to, and a reduction in relative prices in Auckland compared to Christchurch and elsewhere. I am reliably informed, however, that, that initiatives towards housing affordability in New Zealand are now trending in the other way, in the same way they are here, unfortunately. But it was a really good example of a sort of natural experiment. What happens if you change the zoning rules? So it turns out more supply, lower prices.

Gene Tunny  37:11

Okay, yeah. But I’d be mean to have a closer look at that. Because I know there are some, there’s a bit of debate about those data, but I’m just not familiar with them enough. But I want to come back to that. I’ve read about that in the past and mentioned it. I just know that the like everything there ends up being a debate on it. But I agree. I think that would be what I expected. If they did that. I would expect to see that. And if it didn’t happen, then something else must have happened to have stopped that. I guess Simon I think we’ve had a great chat about your article on housing affordability. Was there anything else in that article or any other thoughts you had on housing affordable?

Simon Cowan  37:49

I’ve got a lot of thoughts on housing affordability, but, but I have a lot of thoughts on a lot of things.

Gene Tunny  37:54

Okay, well, maybe I’ll ask you, in the last 10 minutes or so about greedflation.

Simon Cowan

Yes greedflation!

Gene Tunny

So yeah, this became, you know, this has been topical because of our friends at The Australia Institute have been very prominent promoting this view that inflation is due to greedy corporations. And I ended up asking Phil Lowe, about this, I asked our Reserve Bank governor about this at the lunch he he spoke at in Brisbane, and I asked, well, what’s your, what are your thoughts on this? And, and Phil Lowe said, well we looked at it and we don’t really think it’s a it’s really a reasonable hypothesis. And you’ve written something similar, or two, on greedflation, you’ve, you’ve said if, well, this is in an article in Canberra Times 12th of August 2023, “Greedflation myth hides real causes of inflation.” So Simon, could I ask you, what are those real causes and why do you think this greedflation hypothesis, it’s a myth?

Simon Cowan  39:00

Yeah sure, so let’s, let’s start with what greedflation is. Greedflation is the idea that the cause of our current cost of living crisis across the western world, is that corporations, collectively, and spontaneously decided to increase profit margins, and take additional money from, from consumers somehow. You know, the best explanation that I’ve seen for this, the best explanation, the only actual causality that I’ve ever seen someone try and say is, oh, there was supply side shocks as a result of the pandemic and that gave companies the ability to change the prices and so they push the prices up massively. Now, internally, I don’t think that’s actually consistent as an argument because if, support, if the cost of supply went up, then profit margins would go down, not up. But I don’t think any of this is actually about what causes inflation because what caused the bout of inflation is actually really clear. During the pandemic, particularly during 2021, across the western world, governments and central banks massively over stimulated the economy. In Australia, we saw an enormous increase in government spending in the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, we saw a massive stimulus from the RBI in terms of basically creating money, we saw that across the western world, huge deficits, massive stimulus. Now, in 2020, you could argue that that stimulus was needed. And there was this significant shock as a result of the pandemic and significant uncertainty. By the second half of 2021, though, we had most of those variables under control, and governments kept spending and Reserve Banks kept printing money. And the result of that, as it has been, every time this has happened across history, was a massive surge in demand and as a result of that a surge in inflation. Now, the idea of greedflation, greedflation is actually measuring a real thing, there was an uptick in corporate profits, that came from, it wasn’t the cause of, it came from that stimulus, that massive increase in demand. It’s a simple supply and demand issue. There was a massive stimulus in demand, supply is limited to a certain extent, maximum capacity of the economy is certain amount once you go past that, it’s inflation, and that’s what happened. That’s what happened in Australia and Britain and America and Europe, over that period of time, massive increase in demand. And the reason why, you know it’s an increase in demand, and not an increase in costs of supply, is the corporate profits went up. And what we’ve seen in recent times is corporate profits have gone down, as inflation has come down. Why? Because across the western world, governments have been tightening budgets and reserve banks have been increasing interest rates, in other words, reducing demand.

Gene Tunny  41:58

Yeah, yeah. I think that’s, that’s, yeah that’s good. Simon. I mean, I, I largely agree. And I think when I looked at this in a previous episode, I, I talked about a study from Chris Murphy. So Chris, has done modelling of this and he came to that view that it’s because of the huge stimulus…

Simon Cowan  42:18

Yeah I think he predicted it was sort of six or 7% inflation and got pretty close to where it actually landed in Australia for that survey looked pretty good. But I mean, the bigger picture issue here, there’s two really important points coming from this greedflation thing. One of the reasons why the greedflation hypothesis is is so popular or being pushed so hard, is connected to this idea of of wages, and who should be responsible for paying for the cost of bringing inflation under control. So if you can argue truthfully, or realistically or correctly or not, that it’s not workers, and it’s not, you know, ordinary people who are responsible for inflation, therefore, you can’t restrict wages, and your government should be providing cost of living support through their budgets, what you’re trying to do is actually shift the incidence of who has to pay for the cost of getting inflation under control. But it’s such a dangerous thing to do. Because what we know is that the thing that will make inflation enduring, and the thing that will cause the biggest problems if inflation is translated into wage expectations, it creates a cycle that makes it exceptionally hard to break. And the unions and to an extent the government are trying as hard as they can to put in put forward this idea that wages should at a minimum keep pace with inflation. And ultimately, that’s a very dangerous sentiment, in my view.

Gene Tunny  43:49

This is the concern about the wage price spiral. So yeah, yeah, I’ve looked at that in a previous episode. So I might, I might link to that. Yes. So you’ve written in your article on greedflation. “The dissidents seek to de emphasise monetary policy, especially the role of monetary of managing inflation in favour of a greater role for fiscal policy and an equal focus on maintaining full employment.” So you, you see this, this greedflation view, you’re, you’re worried about it because it could lead to really bad policy outcomes in your view?

Simon Cowan  44:31

Yeah I think we’re seeing a shift already. And it’s been coming for a little while, I think, you know, we had a period of time where there was a fairly clear settlement, particularly Australia and macro economic management stability issues were almost exclusively a domain of of monetary policy, and then micro-economic efficiency issues and supply side concerns were the domain of fiscal policy. And the problem with that is that that doesn’t really allow a progressive government that wants to, to, you know, put its finger on the scales in various places to use macro economic measures as a rationale for changing government spending priorities. And so there’s this shift. You can see in America, it’s not just, just here, but away from monetary policy being mechanism for micro, macro economic stability towards fiscal policy being responsible for for huge components of economic well being. And it fits very clearly, I think into what the treasurer has been saying about the role or the return of government to more central position in in determining the direction of economic forces and so greedflation, if you take it away from that over stimulus point and bring it back towards a discussion about employment and wages. It allows you to centralise government in that decision making process again. And it was so hard for us to get past that first time.

Gene Tunny  45:58

Yeah. What are the greedflation, people arguing for greedflation, what are they actually, what would they be suggesting price controls or something? Who really…

Simon Cowan  46:07

Yeah, price controls and tax increases and ,there’s a was a retribution component in some respects. But it’s also this idea that, you know, workers weren’t responsible for this. Therefore, they shouldn’t have to bear the costs of it. And I mean, from a, from a moral perspective, that that sounds right. I mean, it’s not it’s not instinctively wrong, the problem is from an economic perspective, the argument they’re basing that on doesn’t make any sense.

Gene Tunny  46:37

Yeah. Yeah. And particularly, and this is the point Phil Lowe made in response to my question, I might, I’ll put a link in the show notes regarding that, because I had a look at some of the data he was talking about. You don’t see this big spike in the profit share of national income other than in mining, you see it in mining because they’ve had a big terms of trade boom. But you don’t really see it elsewhere in the economy. There’s a little bit but it’s not huge. So it’s hard to see how it supports his greedflation hypothesis. I think that’s a fair point. And I like your point about the lack of a causal mechanism, because, you know, people like the Australian Institute people, what they’ve done is that they’ve shown or they can demonstrate they do some decomposition of the GDP deflator. And they argue that it’s largely associated with, with profits rather than wages. Now, that’s a nice statistical calculation, but it’s just they’re showing a correlation. They’re not necessarily proving any causation, which I think’s your point. Yeah,

Simon Cowan  47:40

Yeah, cool, but far more fundamentally, right? What is inflation? Inflation is an increase in prices. If, and it can only come from from two places, right? It either comes from an increase in costs, or it comes from an increase in in profit share. Now, either it’s come from an increase in costs. That’s a supply side driven inflation. And we’ve seen some of that during the pandemic, particularly around the energy costs. But what they’ve effectively triumphantly discovered is that inflation is an increase in prices, doesn’t say anything about what causes that increase in prices. And you often see, I mean, because unions, I think, unions think this way, because this is how unions work in the sense that everyone gets together and they make a sort of centralised decision. And that then flows outwards, they assume that their opposition works the same way. There is no business or collective sort of companies that can decide what the profit level is like they can’t, there is no mechanism by which you can actually do that. So what we’re seeing is that that sort of accumulation of literally 10s of 1000s of individual decisions in individual markets by individual companies, there’s no, there’s no overarching sort of business sector that makes decisions. It’s just a reflection of what’s happening in the market. And that’s why I mean, it’s the biggest reason why this doesn’t work. Like if, if you wanted companies to reduce profits to cut inflation. How would you actually go about doing that?

Gene Tunny  49:15

Yeah, I largely agree. Now, you’re not saying that, I mean, would you recognise that there are some areas of the economy where there may be excessive concentration or or we do need to be conscious of abuses of market power. Do you have any thoughts on that? Like so…

Simon Cowan  49:31

Yeah, I mean, I have some thoughts on that. I do have a lot of fairly uncharitable thoughts about competition policy for what that’s worth. I do think there are issues around efficiency within markets, and that is a problem. But it’s not at all clear to me that any of the people who are pushing the greedflation agenda, have any idea how to make markets more efficient. And none of their solutions would make markets more efficient or resolve any of those issues. So I I’m less convinced that that’s a solution to this problem. But what we have seen, I think, is over the last sort of 30 or 40 years, as you know, international trade has increased enormously as the sort of tyranny of distance, you know, internet, the ability of markets to sort of reflect international trends, competition has become enormously increased in a number of different markets. So the fact that it’s not immediately visible in Australia, because you can only see the Australian companies doesn’t mean that there’s not a whole bunch of potential competition that could arise there. So, but I mean, I think competition is important, and it’s not as efficient as it could be. But and I’d be very much in favour of making it more efficient. But I don’t know you make competition better or more efficient with more government?

Gene Tunny  50:47

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, we might have to come back to that in a future episode. I just thought of it because I know there’s a lot of talk lately about Qantas. And how close Qantas is to the government. And the government is making decisions in favour of Qantas like not letting Qatar Airways take a route into Australia. And at the same time, we’ve got Qantas coming out in favour of a policy position advanced by the government on the Voice, and it’s given Anthony Albanese, some chairmanship lounge membership.

Simon Cowan  51:17

Yeah well so I actually looked at this issue in the past too, and this is a really important thing, it’s what it comes down to is what the future direction of the economy is. So there’s, there’s a view where you say, you know, it’s big business and big union and big government, they all get together, and they do what they think is in the best interest of the country. Or there’s a model where you say, consumers should be sovereign, and they should make choices and the market reflects whatever people decide to buy with their money. And what we’re seeing is so many more people coming out in favour of that first view, the idea that, you know, the benevolent elites will come and decide what’s best for everyone and that Qantas and, you know, the ACTU and Jim Chalmers can get together in a room and decide what the priorities for the economy should be. And I mean, I fundamentally reject that view. But I think more importantly, my vision is not a business-centric one, it’s a consumer-centric one. Markets are consumer democracy. It’s not about what’s best for business. It’s what about what’s best for people and consumers?

Gene Tunny  52:17

Absolutely. I fully agree. Simon Cowan it’s been terrific. I’m so glad to have caught up with you here in Sydney at CIS’s offices. So thanks again for your thoughts and for your hospitality today.

Simon Cowan  52:30

Appreciate it. Thanks for your time.

Gene Tunny  52:33

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.

53:20

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey. Head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Australia’s Net Zero transition: successes & challenges w/ Andrew Murdoch, Arche Energy – EP202

A conversation regarding the transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, with Andrew Murdoch, the Managing Director of Arche Energy. Andrew shares his positive outlook and realistic insights into the challenges of integrating renewable energy into the electricity grid. He also advocates for being open to a range of options, including nuclear power and carbon capture and storage.
Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple PodcastsSpotify, and Stitcher.

About this episode’s guest: Andrew Murdoch

Andrew Murdoch is the Founder and Managing Director of Arche Energy. 
Andrew has been operating in technical-commercial roles in the Queensland National Electricity Market (NEM) Zone since it was first founded over 20 years ago. In 2017, he founded Arche Energy to provide a high-quality clean energy, power and infrastructure consultancy to facilitate investment in the clean energy sector. He is an experienced general manager, project director and engineer operating in renewable power, power generation, energy, ports and heavy infrastructure.
His experience spans business development activities, major approvals, project execution, operations and maintenance and decommissioning. Andrew is an innovator and optimiser thriving in changing environments through the adaptation and integration of emerging and innovative technologies into business applications.

What’s covered in EP202

How is the transition to net zero going? (1:59)

The problem with intermittent generation. (7:36)

Transitioning from one energy source to another. (13:40)

Traditional hydro & pumped hydro. (16:08)

Geotechnical risks in construction. (20:11)

The infrastructure challenge. (24:00)

Zero marginal cost power. (30:23)

 The role of nuclear energy in the transition to net zero. (45:42)

Links relevant to the conversation

Previous Economics Explored episodes mentioned in this episode:

The Aussie electricity market malfunction of June 2022 – EP156 – Economics Explored

Sir David Hendry on economic forecasting & the net zero transition – EP198

Transcript:
Australia’s Net Zero transition: successes & challenges w/ Andrew Murdoch, Arche Energy – EP202

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It was then checked over by a human, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to pick up the mondegreens that otters sometimes leave in their wake. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny  00:06

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory, evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Hello, thanks for tuning into the show. In this episode, I catch up with Andrew Murdoch to talk about the transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions here in Australia. My occasional co-host, Tim Hughes took part in the conversation too. Andrew is the Managing Director of Arche Energy, which describes itself as a clean energy power and infrastructure advisory providing depth of experience to the investment community as it develops and executes clean energy power generation and infrastructure projects. It’s headquarters are in Fortitude Valley, Brisbane, not far from my office. As you’ll hear, Andrew is generally positive about the transition to net zero. And he has that can-do attitude you’d expect from an engineer, but he’s also a realist. He gave us some great insights into the challenges associated with bringing large amounts of renewable energy into the system. And he made strong arguments for remaining open to a range of options such as nuclear power, and for persisting with r&d in carbon capture and storage, a so called clean coal technology. Okay, let’s get into it. I hope you enjoy our conversation with Andrew Murdoch.

Andrew Murdoch from Arche Energy, good to have you back on the programme.


Andrew Murdoch  01:59

Thanks Gene. Good to be here.

Gene Tunny  02:00

Excellent. Tim, thanks for joining us for this conversation, too.


Tim Hughes  02:04

You’re welcome. Good to be here.


Gene Tunny  02:05

Excellent. So Andrew, you got in touch after the conversation that Tim and I had recently with Sir David Hendry. And one of the things we talked with Sir David about was the transition to net zero. And we talked about what was happening in the UK and what he thought about nuclear energy as a possibility for Australia. And we talked about these small modular reactors. So you got in touch with us. And you’ve been on the show before. And you’ve mentioned that you have some thoughts on renewables on how we’re going with the transition to net zero on nuclear energy. So we’re keen to chat with you about that today. If you’re happy to do that.


Andrew Murdoch  02:44

Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Gene. Yes, happy, happy to do so. Yes, Sir David, raised some interesting points. And so I thought it would be good to expand on some of those a little bit.


Gene Tunny  02:52

Excellent. So to kick off with Andrew, could you tell us how do you think this transition to net zero is going here in Australia? And then we might chat about how it’s going overseas, please.


Andrew Murdoch  03:05

Yeah, look, I think in Australia to date, the transition is going going very well. There’s a lot of excellent projects that are that are happening, we’ve seen a significant increase in the share of renewable energy on the market, and a corresponding reduction in the intensity of greenhouse gases per megawatt hour generated. Each of the states have now got some some ambitious renewable energy targets that they are all working towards. And, you know, we’re starting to see statistics like 25% renewables penetration in states like Queensland and higher in other states as well.

Gene Tunny  03:42

25%? Wow!

Andrew Murdoch  03:45

25% for for financial year 2023, which is, which is fantastic.


Gene Tunny  03:48

So this is the percentage of the electricity generated in the state that is coming from renewable sources, such as solar, and hydro, and it includes the rooftop solar, as well as the big solar farms?


Andrew Murdoch  04:01

Yeah, that’s correct. Yeah. So it’s predominantly solar, wind and rooftop power.


Gene Tunny  04:05

Gotcha. Okay. So we’re at 25% or so here, but we’ve, they’ve got some pretty ambitious targets haven’t they for where they want to get to?


Andrew Murdoch  04:14

Correct yes. So for example, Queensland’s renewable energy target is 50% renewables by 2030. So that’s only another another seven years away. And then 80% renewable by 2035. New South Wales is targeting a 70% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2035 from 2005 levels. So they are really quite ambitious targets. And as renewable penetration increases, it gets harder and harder to manage, as we have to shift more power from times of high renewable generation such as the middle of the day when all of the solar farms are operating, more periods of high wind, collecting the surplus power storing it and shifting it to times when the wind is not blowing the sun’s not shining is is one of two significant challenges. The other significant challenge we have in terms of significantly increasing renewables penetration is in increasing the transmission infrastructure to be able to collect all of the energy that’s generated in the in the renewable energy zones or areas where the sun is strong and the wind and the wind blows and moving that into the load centres in the cities and industrial areas.


Gene Tunny  05:23

Okay, so what’s the issue at the moment, we don’t have the lines where they need to be.

Andrew Murdoch  05:28

Yeah, so the lines have historically connected the large baseload thermal power stations in places like the Bowen Basin and the Hunter Valley, and connected them to, to the load centres in the big cities and, and industrial areas. So because that’s where the energy is flowing, it’s flowing, it’s flowing from the areas where the coal is to where the where the load is, now it needs to now we need to get the energy from where the wind blows and the sunshine as to where the to where the load is. And that’s a lot more geographically dispersed. And, yes, there has always been transmission lines to a lot of these communities. But those transmission lines have been sized to suit the towns and communities in the area, rather than and of course, that load is much, much smaller than the hundreds and 1000s of megawatts that we want to be transmitting from those areas back into the cities.


Gene Tunny  06:20

Right. So what does that mean? We need bigger, more high capacity lines? I mean, how do we think about that? It’s more expensive then is it? There needs to be upgrades, it needs to be new lines?


Andrew Murdoch  06:30

Correct. Yeah. So so the renewable energy zones are all about connecting the high renewables areas to the load centres? And yes, physically, that means new lines, higher voltages, higher capacity transmission systems into those areas.


Gene Tunny  06:45

Right. And what are these renewable energy zones? Do you know roughly where they are?


Andrew Murdoch  06:50

Yes, so New South Wales has five renewable energy zones. They have the Central West Orana, they have New England, Hunter, Southwest, Queensland released its renewable energy zone roadmap. I won’t try and list all of them. There are quite a few, some of the areas that Queensland are progressing North Queensland, area around Biloela or west to Biloela there where there is already some some pretty good transmission systems, but it’s all about connecting, connecting local farms into the local wind farms and solar farms into the into the existing transmission system, Darling Downs, areas around McArthur wind farm, expanding those expanding those zones as well.


Gene Tunny  07:34

Great, okay. Right. You mentioned that as you get more renewables into the system, you have these issues of like, it’s going to be harder to go to the next stage. I mean, we’re at 25%. So you’re saying that it gets more difficult because then you’ve got more of your power from intermittent sources from the renewables, you don’t have as much from coal or from gas. So is what you’re saying have we got the low hanging fruit already? So the the rest of the fruit, they’re going to be more difficult to pick? Is there any rule as to when you have problems? I mean, we’re at 25% now, I mean, can we can we get up to 50%? Like, what does that entail? Is does that is that when we need the pumped hydro, do we need pumped hydro to get to 50%? How do we think about this?


Andrew Murdoch  08:22

You’re sure, so no, there’s not a there’s not a hard rule, things just get harder and harder. So okay, you know, using the low hanging fruit analogy, you need a bigger and bigger ladder as the as the fruit gets higher and higher. So the driver for pumped hydro or any storage is the volatility in the price. So the difference between the low price and the high price is what provides the economic incentive to put storage in. So the more the more generation that happens at the same time, whether it’s solar in the middle of the day, or wind, when the when the wind is blowing as a ratio against the peak demand. The greater that difference is, the greater the economic incentive is for run for the installation of batteries. From a energy supply perspective, from a security of supply perspective, it becomes a probability game. So you’ve got the probability of the sun shining, and the probability of the wind blowing in various different geographically dispersed regions around around the country on the network. And what’s the probability of any one meteor…, meteorological event impacting the energy supply to the point where we have to start turning power off? The more storage you have on the system? The more dispatchable generation you have whether it’s coal or gas, the lower that probability is the more concentrated your your, your renewable energy resources are meteorologically, if you have all of your solar farms in the one location, for example, and and you get you get rain in that location, well you you’re going to get no generation, whereas if you spread them out all over the country, well, you’ve got a greater chance of there being, of it being sunny in any one spot. And of course, if you spread them out in a line that runs east west, then you’re extending your generation day as well. So…


Gene Tunny  10:09

Yeah, yeah, Tim, do you have any questions for Andrew at this stage?


Tim Hughes  10:12

It is a sort of like more of an overview, sort of like question, I guess, when we look at 80% by 2035. Without obviously having a crystal ball, I mean, it’s there as a target, what are the chances of achieving it? And what does it look like to be able to be 80% reliant on renewable energy with those things that you mentioned that, you know, there are pitfalls with wind with solar, with having hydro, which I understand really acts as like a bit of a battery, so that it can have water pumped to the top during the day while there’s available power and then it can access that power in the evening. With 80%, in your view, is that achievable? Are we on track?


Andrew Murdoch  10:52

Yes. So Grattan did some excellent modelling about a year or so ago. And what they found that was that 90% was a was an achievable target from a market operations perspective. And their modelling was around reliability of supply versus time of day, and they found that 90% renewables penetration that was about the optimum. Now the final 10%, was was made up by gas, when it comes to the probability of being able to achieve it. Yeah, look, with enough pumped hydro, and with enough batteries, yes, you can do it. And certainly with the gas in the system to deal with those periods where the sun doesn’t shine, and the wind doesn’t blow for for weeks on end, well, you can just just run gas for that 10% of the time. And if you’re 90%, carbon free and 10% carbon at gas intensities of roughly half that of coal, you know, that’s a pretty good outcome on average 24/7 basis. So in terms of carbon intensity,


Gene Tunny  11:49

So this is interesting, because, like you mentioned, oh, yeah, say it doesn’t you haven’t got the renewables for for a week or so. Like there could be prolonged periods where you don’t have the renewables or you’ve got very little from renewable. And therefore, if you’re saying, well, the gas is 10%. But then for those periods of time, the gas is going to have to be providing 50, 60 or 70%, isn’t it? So you might need that you need more gas capacity than you would in the current configuration. Is that is that one way of thinking? Is that right?


Andrew Murdoch  12:22

Correct. Yeah, and your gas becomes more of a standby generator. And so in that scenario, where you have very low levels of renewable generation, for a for a long period of time, and all of your batteries are flat, and all the hydro dams are empty, that’s when the gas has to has to kick in. And that raises a whole heap of questions around security of gas supply as well. When you are only providing gas for a short period of time, where do you store it? And yes, pipelines have have linepack capability. But that has to be commercial for the pipeline operator and for the provider of the gas in the first place, as well so…


Gene Tunny  13:04

Yeah, what’s that capability line?


Andrew Murdoch  13:06

Linepack. So linepack is gas that is stored in a gas pipeline, in a transmission pipeline. So we have transmission pipelines that criss cross the country, taking gas from gas fields into the into industrial and city centres, the pipes are typically somewhere between 300 and 600 millimetres in diameter. And they’re pressurised, the more the greater the pressure that that you run the pipelines in the more gas you can store in there. So it kind of acts as a big gas bottle, and a transmission pipeline at the same time. And so but that stored gas is what we call linepack.

Gene Tunny  13:37

Gotcha. Okay. Yeah.


Tim Hughes  13:40

I was gonna ask, actually, because one of the other things with this, with different sources of energy, how does the transition looks so for instance, like just to be able to switch from, from one source to another source to another source to then put gas in or hydro or whatever it’s going to be? Undoubtedly, we’re charting, you know, getting into unchartered waters a little bit, because this is the intention to try and make that work. How big a good problem is that likely to be, that flexibility that will be needed?


Andrew Murdoch  14:08

Well, yes. So this is the beauty of the market. So the market operation is such that the generators will each bid in the different technologies that they have at different price points, depending upon what their bidding strategy is, typically, you’ll bid in such that you you’ll bid in to generate whenever the spot price is greater than your short run marginal cost of operation, your cash costs. So then you’re then generating positive cash flow. The market and the transmission system doesn’t really care where the electrons are coming from, if they see, as soon as there is energy flowing through the system. It just flows through the system and the Australian energy market operator, AMO, they run a dispatch engine, where they collect bids from from all of the generators around the country and every five minutes. It will it will issue dispatch instructions to each of the generators to either output more power or output less power or maintain the same level depending upon what price they’ve bid into the system and, and what level of generation they’re physically able to provide at that point in time.


Gene Tunny  15:14

Okay, so, Andrew, in terms of how we compare with other countries, I remember maybe it was when we were chatting last time, but there are some countries that seem to have high renewable penetration, but it’s, it’s the countries with geothermal. Is that correct?


Andrew Murdoch  15:30

Well, it depends upon what natural resources you happen to have. So if you’re New Zealand, or Iceland, and you happen to have some excellent geothermal resources, and then great tap in tap into the side of the volcano that you happen to have, and grab some of that heat and turn it into power, so yeah, yeah. So that that works very well. If you happen to have a lot of hydro resources, if your a Nordic country for example, or or, again, New Zealand, or Tasmania, then then you know, if you’re blessed with that rainfall and you can harvest it, then, then then you have that option. Mainland Australia is a little bit more difficult. We don’t we don’t have the rainfall to support massive hydro schemes other than Snowy Hydro and Tasmania. So we are limited to solar and wind for the bulk of our, the bulk of our renewable, geothermal is an option, but our geothermal resources are very deep and not not high grade, so quite expensive to get that heat to the surface and turn it into power.


Gene Tunny  16:32

So can I ask you a question about hydro versus pumped hydro? Because you mentioned Norway. So does Norway have a lot of hydro? So is it able to generate a consistent or quite a regular amount of energy, from their hydro resources, they don’t have pumped hydro, they’ve got actual, they’ve got enough rain fall? Or that they’re capturing it? They’ve they’ve set up these hydroelectric dams in a way that it’d be good to have some understanding of that just is there a difference between normal hydro and pumped hydro? How does that work?


Andrew Murdoch  17:02

Yeah, so so the key difference between normal hydro and pumped hydro is for normal hydro, the rain or snow falls onto the top of the hill, or a plateau somewhere, collects somewhere into a reservoir or, or some other collection system up high in the mountains, then you run it through a set of penstocks into a turbine that might be several 100 metres, maybe, maybe further underground. And then it will discharge into the river system, several 100 metres below where it’s collected, as opposed to pumped hydro, where you are taking water from a lower reservoir using cheap power to pump it back up the hill, and then storing it at the top of the hill. And then and then running it back down again, during periods when when prices are higher. Now you can do both in the same scheme. And there there are several examples of of both, so you might collect the your snowmelt or your rain up in the up in the hills, run it through the run it through the turbine once and then go, Well, you know what, I wouldn’t mind doing that the second time, and pump it back up the top of the hill again. And that that is particularly useful for areas where there’s seasonal variations in the amount of water that comes through the system, snow melt, for example. So during the during the autumn, you might, you might pump more water up the top of the hill and use it in pumped hydro mode during the spring, you might just use it as a once through system.


Tim Hughes  18:31

And so that will be something where, for instance, because one of the issues that seems with solar or wind, but particularly with solar here is that we can’t store we can generate more than we can store. Is that right?


Andrew Murdoch  18:44

Yeah. Correct. At present, yes, the generation, the PV generation capacity is significantly higher than our ability to store it.


Tim Hughes  18:52

So the pumped hydro is a good solution to use that excess energy in a way of pumping the water back up. So that effectively having it as an extra battery like that the hydro itself serves as a battery. So you can then use that power in the evening?


Gene Tunny  19:06

Yeah, well, it’s a solution. The question is, is it a good solution relative to other solutions we have for for transitioning to net zero, right? Because it’s there’s a cost to it, isn’t there? I mean, presumably like building these big, these pumped hydro dams. That’s I don’t know how billions of dollars, isn’t it? I mean, it’s huge amount of money that we have to spend and…


Andrew Murdoch  19:28

Correct, correct. Yeah, these are big projects. They’re big civil works projects, billions of dollars, many years. Lots of geothermal risk, lots of opportunity, say lots of geotechnical risk. I beg your pardon. Lots of opportunities for the projects to not go as well as perhaps we first planned


Gene Tunny  19:47

Now geotechnical risk. You mean the risk of earthquakes?


Andrew Murdoch  19:50

No I mean, the risk of rock being harder than you expect it to be.

Gene Tunny  19:54

Ah gotcha.

Andrew Murdoch  19:56

I mean, and I mean the risk of tunnel boring machines getting stuck for months. underground, those kinds of those kinds of exercises. So it really impacts in terms of cost and shedule risk and you know, it’s, it is difficult to, it is difficult to predict what rocks underground will cost to dig. And many a construction company has gone to the wall because of not not understanding geotechnical risk.


Gene Tunny  20:22

Right. Wow. Okay. Yeah, that’s that’s a really good point. Because we’ve got to build two new pumped hydro here in Queensland. And that’s because yeah, we need the storage, because we’re going to be relying a lot on solar and wind, we don’t have geothermal as they do in was it Iceland or somewhere like that?


Andrew Murdoch  20:39

Yeah. Iceland and New Zealand, New Zealand, to a lesser extent PNG.


Gene Tunny  20:44

And geothermal will be good. Because is it 24/7 effectively?


Andrew Murdoch  20:49

Correct. Yeah. So the volcano doesn’t sleep. Right. Yeah. So the hot granite doesn’t sleep so it’s a heat source that is there 24/7? It’s a good baseload reserve so…


Gene Tunny  20:59

Yeah, I guess what we’re interested in is, because there’s an upcoming event at the, It’s at The Tivoli I think isn’t it Tim? I think so, yeah, around the corner from where we are here in in Fortitude Valley or Newstead, and it’s about does Australia need nuclear power? Because we’re discovering that the greater penetration of renewables relying more on renewables, well, we need to upgrade the grid, we need to upgrade transmission lines. And there are all sorts of, you know, huge estimates of what that could cost. I’ve seen a trillion dollars or so, it seems that there’s there’s an argument about all what is really the cheapest cost of electricity once you take into account all the all of these network costs, there was a controversy about the CSIRO levelized cost estimates. Could nuclear be part of the the solution given that there are all of these costs with renewables? And we’re not really sure whether it will, well, I mean, maybe maybe we are sure it will work. This is what I want, I’m interested in your view on to what extent should we be looking at nuclear as a potential backup or a plan B, if this, this current plan doesn’t work out?


Andrew Murdoch  22:09

Yeah, well, we certainly should be considering nuclear as one of the options. The, the engineer in me likes to consider things with a sceptical and enquiring mind. So what are all of the options? What are the ones that will work? What are the ones that won’t work? What will they cost? What are the probability that we will achieve the outcomes that we’re trying to achieve? So in the context of assessing any type of technology, we should be looking at? What is it going to cost? What are the consequences? How does it impact our society? How does it impact our landscape? My personal view is that, that advanced small modular reactors have a role to play, particularly when we’re getting into the very deep baseload. So the power that has to run 24/7 at very high levels of reliability, that’s going to be very difficult and expensive to do with intermittent renewables. And it is possible to do it with intermittent renewables, it’s possible to do it with intermittent renewables and storage and gas topping. But another arrow in the quiver of decarbonisation tools that we could use is small modular reactors.


Gene Tunny  23:21

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.


Female speaker  23:26

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice, we can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.


Gene Tunny  23:55

Now back to the show.


Tim Hughes  24:00

It is a really interesting area, because it’s changing very quickly. I was gonna ask, one of the big costs that gets talked about is the infrastructure. And I know before we started recording it was mentioned about Mount Isa, for instance, and the cost of running the copper string connection, which I’ll ask you to talk about in a sec. But as a general thing, the infrastructure as we currently look at it is extremely expensive. With the technology changing as quickly as it appears to be, is it possible that, obviously decisions have to be made now and action has to be done now, is it possible that some of this very expensive infrastructure may become redundant in the not too distant future with the possibility of, for instance, we haven’t also leading into the conversation about SMRs small modular reactors, which I imagine would require less of this infrastructure, if that was to be the case that they would be rolled out in more locations so we don’t need to move energy over large distances. So I guess the overriding question would be, you know, like with this changing technology, battery storage is obviously a big part of this, where it may not be necessary to put all this expensive infrastructure in place. Now, how does that pan out? Obviously, we have to go with what’s available, with current technology, how do we stop ourselves wasting money on infrastructure that becomes unnecessary, fairly soon?


Andrew Murdoch  25:26

Sure. Good question. I guess you there’s a whole heap of crystal balling that…


Tim Hughes  25:33

There is yeah and I realise it’s an impossible question. And it’s very much a sort of moot point, because this is clearly I mean, it’s all expensive. But there’s a lot of money involved in this. And and it’s, you know, it’s taxpayers money getting invested in these systems. And, of course, it’s contentious. And yet, of course, we have to go with what we know, we can’t put things on to what we think is going to happen. But it appears that is moving in a direction quickly enough that we might be able to, I don’t know, it might be prudent to hold off on some of these bigger things. So sorry. I’ve put about five different questions in there for you Andrew. So the copper string connection if we can go with that. So the current way of moving power over long distances is currently quite expensive yeah?


Andrew Murdoch  26:13

Great. Yeah. So I guess I’ll talk specifically about copper string because it’s an interesting project. And it probably in describing it, it, it probably addresses many of your questions. So firstly, the fundamental reason that you would want to connect Mount Isa to the national electricity markets are currently Mount Isa, Cloncurry and all of the mines that operate off that system operate on an isolated grid. So there’s a small power station Diamantina Power Station that operates in Mount Isa, it burns gas, it’s connected to the Carpenteria gas pipeline, and it provides power to those to the mines in those in that area. The original value proposition and this value proposition still holds true today in connecting Mount Isa to the national electricity market is to reduce the cost of minerals processing in Mount Isa. So if you reduce the cost of power, the bulk of the power consumption in the mount Isa grid is used to make big rocks into small rocks so that copper and other minerals can be can be leached out of it. So if you reduce the cost of power, all of a sudden, you can chase lower and lower grades of ore, your mine lifes get extended, and economic output from the northwest minerals province increases. So that’s the value proposition. If you connect Mount Isa to the national electricity grid, those existing power stations at Mount Isa, they still exist, and they can still generate power. And instead of just selling it to customers on the Mount Isa grid, they can suddenly sell that power to people elsewhere on the grid, they can sell it to you and me here in Brisbane or people in Sydney or anyone else who’s connected to the national electricity market. So it opens up the number of customers to them. You also end up in a situation where you have a high voltage electricity network connection going a long way west into a very high solar flux region. So you can still be making a lot of solar power in Mount Isa at 6pm when the sun’s gone down here in Brisbane, and we can take advantage of some of that geographical diversity in the in the network by building that extension. You’re also crossing over the Great Divide, so going from Townsville to Mount Isa, you’re crossing, you’re going very close to Hughenden. And there’s excellent wind resource. And of course, a lot of really, really sunny paddocks along the road as well. You’re going past Julia Creek and all the vanadium deposits in there. There’s multi pronged economic output that comes out of out of this particular investment.


Gene Tunny  28:43

So vanadium is one of those critical minerals, is it? So this is what you’re suggesting that we it might become economic to, are we mining it already and then we process it there? What would be the advantage of…


Andrew Murdoch  28:56

Yes, so there’s there’s a number of vanadium projects in the Julia Creek area that are going ahead and they they will probably be, those projects will probably proceed with or without copper string. It’s just if they can get lower cost power, then that helps the project. So those projects are going to ship the ore, they’ll either process that on site or ship it to Townsville where it will be, where it’ll be processed, and then either export it as vanadium. They also have some other other products that come with it as well. I think one of them has a an oil shale product as well. So there’s a petroleum product that comes out as well from those projects so…


Gene Tunny  29:33

Okay, good one. Sorry, I interrupted you before was just interested in vanadium.


Andrew Murdoch  29:37

Yeah, and then I guess to come back to the redundancy risk point. So for project like copper string, the redundancy risk is I guess, offset by the fact that minerals production in the Northwest will will continue for some time won’t continue indefinitely. At some point we’ll run out of minerals there to mine, irrespective of that is that the solar farms that are being built out there and the wind farms that have been built out there, once they’re built, they will continue to generate at very low cost forever. Whenever, you know subject to upgrades and stuff like that, you know, you might need to replace your solar panels and upgrade to the next level of technology, etc. But once you’ve, once you’ve developed them, why would you ever turn them off if you’ve got this zero marginal cost power coming onto the system? So I’m not so much worried about redundancy. In the context of putting new technologies such as SMR, or clean coal or any other technology into the grid, well, yeah, okay, they’ve got to stand up on their own two feet, every project has to be economically viable. And again, if I owned a wind farm or a solar farm that lived, lived out on the end of a long along spur or in a renewable energy zone, I wouldn’t be turning it off to make space for a competitor I would just keep keep generating so…


Gene Tunny  30:58

On the clean coal, you mentioned clean coal, that’s not really a thing anymore is it? Because they figured out it was not economic, is that right? The whole carbon capture and storage?


Andrew Murdoch  31:08

Not so much figured out that it was uneconomic, I think we just gave up on it. Which is a shame. If you look to Norway, and the US and Canada, they are continuing with carbon capture and storage. There are some carbon capture and storage projects happening in Australia. Santos are doing a project on the Moonee fields, and of course there’s Chevron during the Gorgon project, and all of the under the safeguard mechanism of any new LNG projects have to be 100% carbon neutral, so that sort of enhances the driver to collect reservoir co2 and reinject it back into into underground aquifers. So so…


Gene Tunny  31:51

That’s just the co2 or the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the actual extraction is it? Because it’s not in terms of not the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the burning in some other countries is it?


Andrew Murdoch  32:03

Correct yes. Yeah. So just the scope 1 emissions so for reservoirs, such as typical Northwest shelf reservoir where there is there is co2 and methane in the reservoir. Yeah, instead of venting the co2 and selling the methane that will now be required to deal with the co2 for all new projects connected to LNG facilities… safeguard mechanism.


Tim Hughes  32:25

So their own process becomes neutral as such.


Andrew Murdoch  32:28

Correct. So back to clean coal. Yeah, my personal view is that in Queensland in particular, we’re doing ourselves a disservice by not pursuing clean coal. Now, that’s not to say that it’s going to be the answer. But again, it could be one of several solutions, or one of several contributors to lower lower carbon power in Australia.


Tim Hughes  32:51

Right, just on that note, so for instance, to get to 80% by 2035. So if clean coal was an achievement that could be done, that would be part of the 80% not part of the 20% remaining.


Andrew Murdoch  33:03

Well, it depends upon how you define renewable. Okay, so yeah, okay, so


Tim Hughes  33:08

So actually, sorry. So that’s the distinction is it’s renewable, not necessarily carbon neutral?


Gene Tunny  33:13

I guess you could say it’s renewable equivalent?


Tim Hughes  33:17

Well, no, it’s a fair point. I mean, like, for instance, I mean, as a consumer, like, you know, I love the direction this, this is going and it’s quick, and it stalled for a long time. It’s not too long ago, Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, were making it making a joke out of renewable energy. So the acceleration and the take up has been incredibly fast, which is really exciting to see. And so the intention here is really good from the consumers through to the market through to government now, which is great. And of course, like the conversation like this really is like, well, how well can it be done? Is it realistic? And, you know, what are the best choices? Because it’s moving so fast? So clean coal? Yeah, I mean, like anything that gets extracted from the earth is still viable, in my view, if it can be done in a good way for the environment, like, you know, it’s a big conversation, but it’s basically can we do things ethically, sustainably, renewable, etc, that’s, that’s great. But these figures, these, these amounts going towards 80%. And, of course, at some point, 100%. I mean, that would be the ultimate target, I’m sure.


Gene Tunny  34:24

I think that’s, I think, in Australia, that it would be too difficult because of the intermittency and just, you’d need some gas still, don’t you? I mean, no one’s talking about 100% renewable at the moment in Australia, are they?

Tim Hughes  34:34

I can be the first

Gene Tunny  34:36

you can be the first I’m just wondering whether it would even be feasible. I honestly don’t know.


Tim Hughes  34:42

I guess from that all I mean, is like, you know, new technique because of the emphasis and the money and the brains and the work going behind this now, obviously, this technology is moving very quickly. So ultimately, yeah I mean, like we could end up with very clean energy fusion could be at some point in the future. I mean, like, this is decades away. Who knows what may happen? But the direction we’re heading in is a positive one. And yeah, we have to do what we can with what we have currently. Can we go back to the SMRs a little bit because this is something, this is something that was new to me with that conversation we had with Sir David Hendry. Looking into it a little bit like everything else, it’s a little contentious. It does appear to be a cleaner option, certainly than the traditional nuclear reactors. But it’s not without risk, and it’s not without some waste. What are your views on SMRs Andrew?


Andrew Murdoch  35:35

Yes, so I think they’e a good option that we should consider for that very deep baseload generation, that role that is currently provided by coal in mainland Australia. We need to address safety and we need to address waste because they are obviously weaknesses in the SMR option. So I’m going to make some comments. These comments are based on the the GE Hitachi BWRX reactor, which is currently being designed for a project in Canada. So BWR is boiling water reactor. It’s a it’s a reactor that consumes uranium 235, splits those into into through a fusion reaction, the core is surrounded by water, that water boils, the water is then dried and then goes through a steam turbine to generate power.


Gene Tunny  36:23

Sorry, you mean a fission reaction? fission reactor? Yeah, gotcha. I might have misheard


Tim Hughes  36:29

To be fair they’re so close. I had to really work that one out and lock it in. So fusion is the one that’s talked about often is a bit of a an Eldorado of energy production. But we’re not there yet. And it could be some time away. But fission is what we currently have yeah?


Andrew Murdoch  36:44

Yeah fission is what we currently have. Yeah. So yeah, so that’s splitting atoms, fusion is squishing them together. Yeah. The power output is moderated in the in the fission reactors by a boron set of boron carbide plates that move up and down within the uranium to regulate the absorption of neutrons. And that dictates the rate of the nuclear reaction and the generation of heat. So these boron boron carbide plates in a modern reactor is when they’re fully inserted, they will will slow the reaction right down and let it come to an end. So in a modern reactor, they’re held up by a set of electromagnets, should power fail to the reactor, if something happens, then that electromagnet obviously loses power, the boron plates will drop under gravity into the off position, and then the reaction will come come to an end. Older reactors don’t necessarily have that failsafe mechanism, there might have been some mechanical linkage that might have had to push them up rather than rather than let them drop down etc. So, you have this this safety system where if the power goes up, it moves to a safe position. One of the improvements that came out of Fukushima was to introduce reduce the energy density in the reactors so that they could cool naturally using convective currents. So the the the GE material states that the BW RX will cool naturally for up to seven days without any operator intervention without any external power. So when we when we start to look at Chernobyl, and that was an issue with the positioning of the control rods, and Fukushima where the the circulating pumps stopped working. Those two failure modes have been addressed in these new newer reactors. The other comment is that are lower temperature, lower pressure. So the GE Hitachi machine runs at 285 degrees C and around seven and a half mega pascal, which compared to a coal boiler is relatively relatively low temperature and low pressure. So if we were, if I was specking, up a new coal fired power stations today, it would be 600 degrees and 30 MPa, so significantly hotter, significantly higher pressure, so pushing the boundaries of modern material science, whereas the BWRX has a lot more achievable, I guess, more comfortable pressures and temperatures that give you a wider range of materials that you can select from and will last a lot longer with respect to creep life and fatigue.


Gene Tunny  39:20

Right. One of the things I think I remember about these SMRs, I don’t know if we chatted about it last time, or if it was when I was chatting with Ben Scott on on the show, can you just put these where we’ve got existing coal fired power stations, you can replace the the coal fired power? What is it the generator or whatever it is, with the with the actual SMR?


Andrew Murdoch  39:30

Yeah, it looks so in my view, that’s a good location for them because you already have the transmission infrastructure and you already have the water. So an SMR is going to use about the same amount of water as an equivalent coal fired power station, maybe a little bit more because that because those temperatures and pressures are a little bit lower, so the thermal efficiency is not quite as high. So it might use a little bit more water. And there’s no reason why we can’t put some hybrid cooling in there as well to reduce that water consumption. So those issues are all are all solvable.

Gene Tunny  39:42

What’s this hybrid cooling?

Andrew Murdoch  39:45

So the traditional way of cooling steam turbines is using evaporative coolers. So they’re the big hyperbolic cooling towers that one associates with nuclear power stations, actually nothing to do with the nuclear part, it’s everything to do with the steam turbine part. Yeah, so and that basically evaporates water to, to take the heat out of the condenser. A dry cooling tower is more like a radiator in your car, where you’re just using the air circulating through the radiator to cool it, a wet cooling tower will an evaporative cooling tower will will be more efficient, because it drops the temperature to the dew point temperature rather than the dry bulb temperature, which gives gives you a couple of percent of efficiency in your steam turbine, which is very valuable. And then if you do a hybrid you the reason you would do a hybrid is essentially to save a bit of water, drop the high temperature heat out using the radiator and then still achieve those lower temperatures by by taking maybe the last 10, 20% of heat out using evaporative cooling.

Gene Tunny  41:12

Right. Okay, gotcha.


Tim Hughes  41:15

So there’s still some radioactive waste from SMRs. Is that right? So it’s reduced. So compared to the energy it can generate, it’s less than a large nuclear station, nuclear power station, but there is still some waste percentagewise, I guess, compared to the power generated,…


Andrew Murdoch  41:35

Correct Yes. Yeah.

Tim Hughes  41:37

Radioactive waste. I mean,

Andrew Murdoch  41:35

Correct Yes. So yes, it does generate high level radioactive waste. And the most significant part of that is the spent fuel rods. Now the spent fuel rods can be reprocessed. It’s I can’t remember the ratio. Now it’s something in the order around 95% of the energy remains in, in the uranium fuel rods after they’re removed from the reactor so that reprocessing which is essentially is, is refining the amount U235 and removing some of the U238. And once it’s reprocessed, it can go straight back in the reactor and run for another…


Tim Hughes  42:08

So is this transuranic waste? Is that right? Because this is David Henry mentioned about he referred to transuranic waste, which can then be reused by the SMR. I’m just repeating this is. I mean, this is we went over this briefly with Sir David. So it would be something we could put to him directly. But that was my understanding that there was a certain amount of the waste that can then be used as fuel by the SMR.


Andrew Murdoch  42:37

Yeah, correct. Correct. Yeah, the bulk, the bulk of it can be reprocessed, and reused. Now, that said, even if you don’t, and a lot of countries don’t reprocess their waste, because it’s quite expensive compared to to producing new fuel rods from raw uranium, even if you don’t you’re just still only generating a very small amount of waste.


Tim Hughes  42:57

Radioactive waste is pretty serious stuff for a long period of time. So the disposal of that, I guess, must be quite expensive, let alone the dangers of handling and processing that


Gene Tunny  43:08

We’ve got a lot of places you could bury it in, in Australia, Outback Queensland, Australia, you know, plenty of place.


Tim Hughes  43:17

So, um, but the thing is, obviously, with the aim for clean energy, it’s an uncomfortable addition to the suite of energy provision sources that we may be looking at. However, I mean, it was interesting, because I didn’t know of it until just recently with the interview with Sir David Hendry. He’s a climate econometrician so very keen on having, you know, a clean, ethical source. And he was a supporter of this. So it’s certainly interesting. And, you know, it certainly is something that needs to be considered because obviously, the alternatives, everything’s got to pay off at some point.


Andrew Murdoch  43:55

Yeah. And that we shouldn’t we shouldn’t be too glib about the waste issue. It is a serious, it’s a serious issue. And, you know, one of the one of the cons on the pro con balance of of any technology, my personal view is that if we do go down an SMR path that we should also be committed to reprocessing. Yeah. So look, I think the this conversation sort of highlights how complex energy is and that in any technology choice we make there, there are trade offs that we have to make. If we look at things like land impacts, okay, well, in nuclear, yes, you’ve got to, you have to store the waste somewhere. So that’s going to have an impact on land. And yes, we’ve got some good geological characteristics about Australia and lots of space. If I look at Coal, for example, well, you’ve got to dig holes in the ground and that has an impact on the land if you want to burn gas you’ve got to go and you’ve got to go and sink gas wells and that has an impact on the land if you want wind then you’re going to have to go and go and find some windy hills that are probably covered in some nice gum trees and and put up some wind turbines. If you want to put up solar farms, you’re going to have to go clear some bush or take some agricultural land or grazing land and turn that into solar cells. So there are no free lunches.


Tim Hughes  45:05

And if you want to store the energy, you’ve got to build the batteries.


Andrew Murdoch  45:09

Build the batteries or dam, the dam, the valleys or whatnot, all of these things, there’s a bill to be paid one way or the other. So the best we can do as, as a community is to is to assess all options. On a level playing field basis with a with a sceptical and enquiring eye. What is the best engineering? What’s the best economics? What’s the best ecological science? Can we afford it? will it produce the ecological social power reliability needs that we want? Or is it the best compromise of all of those?


Gene Tunny  45:42

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Based on this conversation sounds like we should be considering some more options. Maybe we’ve tied our hands. Because we’re not talking about potential role of nuclear, we’re not talking about potential role of clean coal, or there’s less focus on that, then there once was. This has been amazing again, really good. Good for us, because this is such a complex area. And I mean, I’ve got my own thoughts, but I don’t know enough about the engineering to be able to speak authoritatively on it.


Andrew Murdoch  46:15

Now. Look, it’s been a good discussion. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity.


Gene Tunny  46:19

Oh, it’s a pleasure, Andrew, we’re always, always happy to chat. And yeah, it’s good to get your insights on the transition to net zero. So Thanks, Andrew. Thanks, Tim.


Tim Hughes  46:29

Thank you. Thanks, Andrew.


Gene Tunny  46:32

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com, or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.


47:19

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this, or to begin your own podcasting journey, head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

The role of experts in a democracy: pandemics, monetary policy & AI w/ Peter Kurti, CIS – EP201

The Centre for Independent Studies’ Peter Kurti asks “ Should those who know best rule the rest of us?” In this episode, host Gene Tunny chats with Peter about his new paper “Authority, Expertise and Democracy,” which explores the role of experts in government and how society should best utilize their knowledge in public policy making. They delve into the question of when it makes sense to delegate power to experts and the relevant considerations. The role of experts in decision making around the pandemic, monetary policy, and AI are discussed. 


Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored.

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple PodcastsSpotify, and Stitcher.

About this episode’s guest: Peter Kurti

Peter Kurti is Director of the Culture, Prosperity & Civil Society program at the CIS. He is also Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Law at the University of Notre Dame Australia, and Adjunct Research Fellow at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture at Charles Sturt University. He has written extensively about issues of religion, liberty, and civil society in Australia, and appears frequently as a commentator on television and radio. In addition to having written many newspaper articles, he is also the author of The Tyranny of Tolerance: Threats to Religious Liberty in Australia; Euthanasia: Putting the Culture to Death?; and Sacred & Profane: Faith and Belief in a Secular Society, published by Connor Court. Peter is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and an ordained minister in the Anglican Church of Australia.

What’s covered in EP201

[00:02:30] Authority and experts in government.

[00:04:07] Impact of experts during COVID. 

[00:09:29] Discrimination and lockdown restrictions. 

[00:13:29] Delegating power to experts. 

[00:18:12] Politicians’ difficult role in decision-making. 

[00:21:11] Trade-offs in decision making. 

[00:27:23] Vaccine mandates. 

[00:34:27] AI and expert advice. 

[00:37:35] Expert advice and self-interest. 

[00:37:59] The importance of delegation of monetary policy decisions. 

[00:40:19] Expert Failure book by Roger Koppl. 

[00:43:33] Experts and human failings. 

[00:50:32] The length of the leash. 

[00:52:12] The role of experts in policy making.

Links relevant to the conversation

Peter Kurti’s new paper for the Centre for Independent Studies:

Authority, Expertise And Democracy. Should those who know best rule the rest of us?

Episode on Public Choice theory mentioned by Gene:

EP93 – Public Choice theory with Dr Brendan Markey-Towler – Economics Explored 

Transcript:
The role of experts in a democracy: pandemics, monetary policy & AI w/ Peter Kurti, CIS – EP201

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It was then checked over by a real human, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to pick out any howlers that otters might have missed. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny  00:06

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory, evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Hello, thanks for tuning in to the show. In this episode, I chat with one of my colleagues at the Centre for Independent Studies, Peter Kurti. Peter is director of the Culture Prosperity and Civil Society programme at CIS. He is also Adjunct Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Australia. Peter has written a great paper for CIS on the role of experts in government. The paper is titled “Authority, Expertise and Democracy – Should Those Who Know Best Rule The Rest of Us?” In the paper, Peter asked how society should best use experts in public policymaking and he provides some very useful tips. This is a really important issue given how much we rely on experts. At different times, experts have wielded a lot of power. Dr. Anthony Fauci in public health and Jay Powell in monetary policy come to mind. When does it make sense to delegate power to experts? What are the relevant considerations? Peter Kurti provides some great advice in his latest paper, which we talk about in this episode. Okay, let’s get into it. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Peter Kurti.

Peter Kurti, thanks for joining me on the programme.


Peter Kurti  01:59

Thanks, Gene. Great to be with you.


Gene Tunny  02:02

Very good Peter. You’ve recently had a new paper published by the Centre for Independent Studies, “Authority, Expertise and Democracy – Should Those Who Know Best Rule The Rest of Us?” I’d like to ask to begin with what got you interested in this issue of expertise? Why did you think this was a good topic to write a paper on?


Peter Kurti  02:24

This all started really during the period of COVID and the lock downs. And I felt that here in New South Wales, and I know in other parts of the country in Queensland and Western Australia, and certainly Victoria, Premiers, it seemed to me ceded a great deal of authority to unelected chief medical officers, who determined what a government could and couldn’t do, and should and shouldn’t do, and certainly what the population should and should not do. And I felt that it in the course of managing an understandably complex public health situation. Nonetheless, politicians were ceding too much authority to experts, and that when politicians do this, they pose a threat to the liberal democratic society in in which we live, because we elect politicians to do a job, we elect politicians on the basis of policies they undertake to implement. And we look to politicians to regulate the kind of society in which we live. But they are accountable, because if we don’t like what they do, we can we can turf them out at the next election. And we can turf out individual members of parliament at by-elections. But when we have unelected unaccountable experts, such as chief medical officers dictating what can happen in any society, I think that it poses a great danger to us. And we saw the impact of this because there were social consequences. There were economic consequences. And there were cultural consequences as well. And I’m thinking when I talk about that I’m thinking about the impact on families of not being able to travel for funerals, not being able to visit people who are sick or terminally ill. And I think that the standard that chief medical officers set which was you know, keep everybody safe, and that there must be no risk of any contamination or, or contagion whatsoever, meant that the additional costs, the consequences that are borne or have to be borne from those decisions, were not taken into account. And that was really what made me start to think about the problem of experts. I mean, we need experts. They are an integral part of a, of a technologically complex society. I don’t say we don’t need them, but we need to hold them to account and we need to make sure that elected representatives, politicians who are appointed by us to do a job actually do do their job.


Gene Tunny  05:09

So would you say that the, to an extent these experts were ruling over the rest of us during that COVID period, is that, that’s the argument you’re making there Peter?


Peter Kurti  05:18

In Covid yes, I think they were. And I think that there are a number of reasons why that happened. One was that it was a once in a century, once in 100 year, public health emergency, and no politician really knew what to do. Nobody really knew what was coming. And there was a lot of anxiety and a lot of fear amongst the population at large. And politicians clearly had a responsibility to not just to set an example, I think, but to reassure uneasy populations, and one of the ways to do that is to cite medical advice, scientific advice. And the it to an extent, we all looked to chief medical officers to tell us, first of all, what is happening, and then tell us what’s going to happen next. And so as I said, a moment ago, it was a very understandable set of circumstances, but I don’t think it justifies or excuse, it justifies but it doesn’t excuse what happened. And I think that we must always be sure, should such a pandemic ever occur again, that public health advice is just one part of the body of information, one part of the body of opinion that is taken into account.


Gene Tunny  06:38

Yeah, yeah, I agree. Yeah. This is something I’ve covered on this show before and I had concerns about is there’s a point you’re making the paper about how there are, there are trade offs involved, and you need politicians to make those judgments. And there’s no real technocratic answer or no real. I mean, is that one of the arguments you’re making is I mean, the the idea of having an expert in charge or, or their view, almost prevailing all the time, the problem there is that that’s a technocratic answer. It assumes that there’s always a technocratic answer. Is that a fair reading?


Peter Kurti  07:17

I think that’s right. So Gene, and one of the reasons I think we got ourselves into this situation during the pandemic was the politicians didn’t really know what to do, because it was such an unexpected and unanticipated set of circumstances. And I think that they were, you know I’m speaking about in very general terms about a large group of people with different political affiliations. But on the whole, I think, political leaders did not want to be caught out, they did not want to be sort of caught out by the media, who might then say, if if things get worse that to say, well, you know, if you’d taken that advice, this wouldn’t have happened. How do you account for that? And so I think we have an increasingly risk-averse group of politicians who will just as it were hide behind or rely upon or depend upon that sort of expertise in order to, in a sense, make life easier for them. But we need that sort of, I mean, in a sense, we can’t, we cannot avoid engaging with experts. And we cannot avoid engaging with people who have expertise in public health when it comes to managing health issues such as the pandemic. But if we don’t hold people to account, if we just allow experts to make decisions for us, without regard for the broader set of consequences, those trade offs that you mentioned, then I think we’re in trouble. And we saw that we saw that in every state, and territory. But we certainly saw that here in New South Wales, where areas were locked down. So that there was an area in in in Sydney, from which a lot of tradies needed to travel in order to work, when they can’t travel, they can’t work when they can’t work, they can’t earn money. And well, I mean, we know what the economic consequences of and the social consequences of that are. And I think simply to say, you must stay home and stay safe is not enough, because everyday life is full of risks. And we take risks and assume risks and make calculations about risk every day.


Gene Tunny  09:26

Yeah. What area was that? Peter? Was that from Western Sydney? Fairfield? Fairfield. Gotcha. Okay. Was there also a an issue of the composition or the demographic makeup of that area that that suggested that I mean, this was almost discriminatory in a way because I know that some areas which had higher ethnic populations, they ended up being suffering worse restrictions, didn’t they? And that can lead to social tension.


Peter Kurti  09:54

That’s right. And that is exactly what happened because they found, I mean, the police were very, in my view, were very heavy-handed during a lot of this time, and then the police or others found that in communities with large, the large ethnic component, people were not being as observant about the restrictions because, for example, in, in Muslim communities, there are larger families and getting together and mixing with one another is is very important. And they attracted, I think, the particular attention of the authorities because of this. And so the lockdowns and restrictions were more stringent. Again, you know, judging everybody by one standard, everybody must stay safe. Everyone must stay home, regardless of whether or not that’s something that’s practical or even necessary.


Gene Tunny  10:51

Hmm, yeah, exactly. You talk about this concept of double delegation. So I’d be grateful if you could explain that and also reflect on is this something that we’re increasingly seeing these chief medical officers, they’ve been introduced in the last couple of decades? I mean, we didn’t have a Chief Health Officer in Queensland, I don’t think until the early 2000s, we had a public health act in 2005 that came in, and this this new position they’ve created, and they delegate some powers to that position. And presumably there are other examples of this, is this something that’s becoming more common. Is this something you’re concerned about the trend? Could you talk about that, please, Peter?


Peter Kurti  11:36

It is part of a larger trend. It was COVID that alerted me to the problem and brought it into focus. And I suppose maybe I have simply been complacent before because we are used to experts, advising government and all kinds of things. We just think, Oh, well, that’s the way the world works. But not in my lifetime have I seen what kind of impact this expert advice had? But I think it is part of a broader trend. And we see it in other areas. I’ll say something just about double delegation before I come back to that to that manifestations of that broader trend. It’s a phrase I picked up from the English political scientist, Adrian Pabst who talks about the the fact that he describes this problem that arises when we as it were delegate to elected politicians, we delegate to them, we say we appoint you to do a certain job for a certain amount of time, we will assess you. I know this is not necessarily what we actually think. But we say we will assess you at the next election and decide whether you’re going to keep the job. Those to whom we delegate, delegate in turn to, to this body of experts, and Pabst describes it like this. He says, double delegation arises when representatives elected by citizens delegate power to unelected officials, who are part of a professional political class. So it’s not just a matter of delegation, but delegation to a professionalised group of people who, who are then use their professionalised status to further entrench their position. And to argue that what they say not only is right but needs to be observed. Now, we’ve seen in public health that was the most obvious example but I think we also see it when, when there are discussions, for example, about energy, about climate and changes in in the climate. We do see it a lot in economics, although I think that’s to an extent a rather specialised example, because economics is so is so technical. Certainly monetary theory is very technical. But we hear these phrases that are put about when there are discussions about climate change, like the science is settled, for example, which I think is a contradiction in terms because I don’t think science is settled. But a group of professionalised climate scientists decided that this is this is the position we need to adopt. And they’re backed up by the media, who emphasise their opinions and so consolidate their position. So it’s part of a broader trend. And I think we’re going to see more of this, I think with when areas that really, so few of us actually do understand such as AI and the emergence of AI and development of AI. We need to be really vigilant about the way in which we use expert advice. The paper is not I’m not anti experts. I’m not saying we don’t need experts, we can we can make our own decisions any more than I’d say we don’t need we don’t need surgeons. I’ll do my own surgery. Thank you very much. Well, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that if we are going to use experts as we are bound to do, we as citizens of a liberal democracy in Australia, need to be thoughtful about the way in which we engage them in ways in which we hold them to account. And we also need to be stronger about defending freedom of speech in the sense that I think we need to be more willing to tolerate dissent, we need to be able to say, well, this group of scientists over here says, you know, there is a climate catastrophe, for example, whereas this group of scientists over here is saying, well, warming and cooling is just part of a trend. These are parts of tre.., these are trends that that take place in on the earth over a period of years. We need to be able to tolerate dissenting views. I’m not saying we are necessarily able to determine which view is correct. But we are increasingly reluctant I feel to tolerate it today. We’re reluctant to tolerate dissenting views, because we want to have the right answer. We want to know what the right position is the right solution is. We saw that during COVID. Of course, when debates about the efficacy of vaccine mandates or mask mandates, or social distancing, dissent was not tolerated. And I think that if we are going to make an intelligent use of experts, we do need to be willing to tolerate dissent and to live with perhaps the discomfort that comes from having dissenting views.


Gene Tunny  16:24

Yes, yes, exactly. Yeah. It makes it difficult for politicians, though, if, if the experts don’t agree, so how, how do we think about that? Or what’s the relationship I mean you mentioned tolerating dissent, that’s one of your rules or your tips for getting experts, like using them effectively? I mean, there’s obviously a role for expertise and people who understand the issues, and they provide the advice to the government of the day. How do you think about how those experts should be used? And I mean, what do decision-makers do when there is a situation of of that of that dissent I mean, is it up to them to judge where the weight of evidence is? I mean, because the politicians will say, Well, look, the bulk of evidence is in favour of this hypothesis. It could be climate change, for instance. So yeah, how do you think about that, Peter, how should politicians use experts?


Peter Kurti  17:21

Well, I think it really just the way that you have outlined by examining what it is the experts are saying, By assessing the evidence, by determining where the bulk of opinion lies, and then using judgement and skill to make a decision. We can apply that sort of framework to any policy area where might think about migration, levels of migration, there are people experts who say Australia, we can’t have a big Australia, others say we can have a big Australia, and each side will mount will present evidence to bolster their own arguments. And I’m sure believe, quite passionately, the evidence that the cogency of the evidence they present, but somebody then has to make a decision about how we do that, and an elected government has to take a position, we can see it in terms of going to war, or whether we supply arms, for example, to Ukraine, we went into Iraq 20 years ago, very controversially, but we did so on the bai., I mean, at the Howard Government did so on the basis of evidence that was presented. And as we remember, because we know those around at the time, there was a huge amount of dissent in this country about that. At the end of the day, it’s elected representatives who have to make the call and are then held accountable. So I think it’s it’s a difficult role. And I’ve never been an elected politician. So I’ve never been in the position of having to implement this. I’m simply really someone on the sidelines who’s advocating for a certain as it were, a certain style of, of a certain style of living, if you like. But I think it’s by by weighing and assessing, carefully, evidence that is presented. And I think not allowing fear, I talked about the importance of political courage, not allowing fear of adverse consequences to deter somebody to deter you from making the right decision, for example. When I mean, how many years ago was it now it’s it’s must be nearly 30 years since the Port Arthur tragedy. And the Howard Government decided that they were going to take a stand on on firearms. And there’s a lot of controversy about that at the time. I remember not being in Australia very long. And the view was that people living in the country or people who are really attached to their weaponry wouldn’t be happy with this. And there were arguments on both sides, but I think the weight of public opinion, or rather, I should say this put it this way. I think the Howard Government made it made a decision based on on the evidence and the politics, and also having to judge which way public opinion whether public opinion would accept this. And it was a controversial decision. But I think, given the horror of what happened at Port Arthur, the Australian public did accept it. But there was no telling, which was the right what was the right decision or not? I think it’s in a sense, you only know whether you’ve made the right decision with hindsight.


Gene Tunny  20:33

Yeah. What really annoyed me during that COVID period was the politicians making decisions and saying, the science tells us this, we have to do this, this is the only the only thing we can do and, and not going into what the decision making process was or they didn’t show that they were weighing up pros and cons, whereas they really should have because there are going to be pros and cons of any decision. There are the trade offs we talk about, there was no right answer in necessarily, in my view, it’s always a judgement call to an extent when we’re we’re dealing with those trade offs. And what made that clear to me and to others, and this is something I was chatting with one of my colleagues, Joe Brannigan about on this, this show when it happened, we had a Chief Health Officer who I don’t know if you remember, they let Tom Hanks in, you know, if you’re a movie star, you’re a footballer, you you had no problem getting into Queensland. But if you were just some regular, you know, person and yeah, bad luck, you got to do two weeks quarantine. And then we had a constraint on the number of hotels for quarantine. So that meant people were camping on the border. It was just disgraceful. So that that’s one thing that annoyed me that I think there was too much relying on the experts saying this is what the experts have told us that it’s based on science. And there’s no acknowledgement that they’ve actually, you know, there’s really a call that’s been made there, or there should be a call, there should be a judgement that the politician should be involved in. I think that makes sense. Does that make sense? What I was just saying?


Peter Kurti  22:16

Yes it does! And the trouble is that the politicians just caved in. I think there was a I mean, there were these sorts of stories all around the country. But there was that famous incident where a mother I think living in Tweed Heads needed to get her very sick child or children to a hospital. The nearest was in Queensland, but it’s qui… You can edit this bit out Tweed Heads, Tweed Heads in New South Wales isn’t it?. Yeah. She needed to get across the border. And Palaszczuk said famously, or notoriously that Queensland hospitals are for Queenslanders? Well, I thought, you know, I mean, it was a disgraceful thing to say, because I felt what was also happening in this time of panic was that our national identity was fragmenting and we were becoming a sort of a collection of fragmented colonies, and I would d.., former colonies, and I thought that even our sense of national cohesiveness has, has has gone. All kinds of stories, like I’ve had people who weren’t able to visit sick, sick relatives in hospital, because there was this fear of contagion. And I think, and politicians just seem to be happy to let that happen. In New South Wales, interestingly enough, when Berejiklian left, left the job of Premier and Dominic Perrottet came into office, the first thing he did was reduce the period of isolation that you had to have if you tested positive from seven days to five days. And there was the usual concern expressed by public health experts that actually this you know, you could still be contagious after five days and, and, you know, this is really not a good decision to make, but Perrottet had the wisdom to see that, in fact, people needed to get back to work and they need to get on with our lives. And that five days was enough. And that you just had then have to assume a degree of risk and in in what you do next, and we all of us, you know, we exposed to the flu virus every year. We know that if we’re sick, we stay home if we’re not if we if we feel really unwell we go to bed, and I think for the state to say and saying to people who are actually very well but happened to have tested positive on a on a on a rat rapid antigen test, which in itself was not 100% reliable, meant that people were exposed or subjected to all kinds of inconvenience. So I think there were lots of examples such as such as the ones that you cite, and and the ones that I’ve cited,


Gene Tunny  24:55

And just on Tweed Heads, so just to provide some context. So it’s part the same urban area as the Gold Coast effectively. I mean, if you if you drove through there, you wouldn’t, unless you saw the sign, you wouldn’t realise you were crossing from Queensland to New South Wales. So it’s, and that was the that was part of the problem. And then they had to put the barricades up and have the police there. It was just just awful situation. So I should ask Peter about the those tips for dealing with experts. You mentioned them before, I just want to go over them again. Because I think this is really good I think this is one of the best things you do in this paper, you’ve got these three cultural contours. There are three of them that if cultivated and emphasised can underpin the approach to engage in experts and help encourage an efficient and responsible contribution to democratic decision making and one tolerance of dissent. Absolutely. Political courage. So the elected representatives need to be less anxious about upsetting public and political opinion in determining the policy trade offs. I think that’s great. I think what would have worked, now it sounds like I’m picking on the politicians or politicians during the pandemic, but of course, it’s it’s one of those, you know, it’s an example. It’s one of the, you know, it’s one of those crisis periods where you really, these issues come to the fore. So, look, I understand the human, I don’t want to be super negative about them. But they really did provide this, this example for us to talk about. So I will talk about it again that say, you know, what would have been better is if say, our Premier had said, okay, look, yeah, this is what the Chief Health Officer advised. I’ve weighed this up, I’ve recognised the fact that this is going to cost the economy, but this is the judgement I make, which you should the politicians should have be more honest about that is that that’s what you’re getting at there?


Peter Kurti  26:45

Well, yes. And I think, not being frightened of making a decision. Lest it turn out to be the wrong one. I felt they played it safe all, all the time. And so I think that’s right. We saw it with the vaccine mandates that I mean, we were, for example, we knew that the vaccine wouldn’t stop you necessarily stop you getting COVID. But it would alleviate the symptoms, you would have it less badly. But it didn’t, if I’m vaccinated, it doesn’t stop me from infecting you. It just something that affects me and yet we had in New South Wales and around the country, these vaccine mandates, and it got ridiculous, you couldn’t go in, you couldn’t go into shops, you couldn’t go into these unless you prove that you’ve been vaccinated, whereas vaccination really did not affect, my vaccine status did not affect you or any other of my neighbours. And yet nonetheless, we were required to do this, and the hurriedly developed vaccines were presented to the Australian population as being safe. And we know that they were not entirely safe as I mean, no vaccine is because science, to an extent, is an art. I mean, it’s a science, but it’s also it’s an art and we don’t, we can’t always be sure of an outcome. And certainly, I think with things like vaccination, especially when they’re rapidly developed, there will be there will be difficult, and there’ll be problems. But anyone who raised those sorts of problems would announced those who expressed concern about about the safety of vaccines, vaccines were, were denounced as being irresponsible. And it seemed to me that no politician was prepared to say, we don’t need to do. We don’t need to do things in exactly this way. We need to be calmer, we need to be more realistic about about the nature of disease, we panicked. I mean, Western Australia shut down the entire state, when there was one case, yet we seem to be blithely indifferent to the 1000s of people who die every year of flu. And I felt there again, you know, the politicians were just caught up in this pandemic panic. And I think that a degree of political courage, would’ve allowed them to say, It’s okay, you know, we have sickness we have people do get sick, but life has to go on. And we need to make we need to be responsible and take decisions in a way that minimises the harm that we expose others to, but that allows us to continue with the lives that we’re living. And the the incomes that we’re earning. So yes, I think it’s, it’s that sort of response that I would like to see cultivated by when that I’m really scribing in terms of political courage.


Gene Tunny  29:45

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.


Female speaker  29:51

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.


Gene Tunny  30:20

Now back to the show.

Okay, very good. So we talked about tolerance of dissent, political courage, and the final cultural contour is institutional integrity. Yes, exactly. Yes. So, “No democracy today can dispense with experts, but institutional mechanisms of accountability can ensure that experts exercise autonomy, responsibly” Could, what, what mechanisms do you mean there Peter?


Peter Kurti  30:49

I think? Well, I cite a number of examples. One is the oversight of budgets that are available to experts, the appointment of experts to advisory panels and boards, the codes of conduct that guide the behaviour of of experts, codes of ethics, just, you know, various sort of social and institutional frameworks that we put in place to ensure that people know, experts know that they have to be accountable and cannot simply claim their expertise as a warrant for doing whatever it is they want. You know, it’s a slightly nebulous idea, because it’s not it’s not something it’s not like a switch that can be can be flicked. And suddenly we have institutional integrity. I think that is a that’s why I call them these three points I call cultural contours, because cultural culture evolves and a cultural contour is something that has to be cultivated. And in a sense, practised as well. Another form of institutional integrity might be the very fact that we can question experts and say, but, you know, you’re wrong. Going back to the pandemic, it was simply not acceptable to say that Sweden had got it right and Australia got it wrong. I remember doctor as a doctor friend saying to me that ivermectin was, which, which in his medical experience was something that had that had the capacity to alleviate COVID symptoms, could now no longer be prescribed off label. And he was very indignant about that, because he felt doctors always have a discretion about prescribing medicines. And that whilst the medication can be prescribed for a specific condition, that it states on label, it might also have an effect on conditions not specified hence the description off label but they were actually prevented from prescribing off label. Well, I think we need to also why is this why but even to utter the word, ivermectin would get you disconnected from, you know, various groups and various fora. So that’s another form of another manifestation of institutional integrity that we can actually, we can have systems in place that are robust enough to ensure that people are held to account and are not free to make those sorts of decisions without without regard for the wider consequences.


Gene Tunny  33:18

Yeah, exactly. I mean, to me, so they’re getting some scrutiny. I mean, there is some media scrutiny, arguably not enough, there was not enough probing, there weren’t enough probing questions during the pandemic of the politicians and the officials and the chief health officers, they should subject themselves to more media interviews. And part of the problem is the normal processes of government were suspended, weren’t they during the COVID period, because we had these public health acts that gave them these emergency powers. So there wasn’t the usual debate in the parliament or the you know, the committee processes where there’s something serious, you know, something of such magnitude or such, such great impact on the economy and society would be debated for, I don’t know I mean should be extensively debated in parliament in committees, and it just wasn’t. So that’s that was what I see as one of the problems too.

Peter Kurti  34:18

I agree, I agree.

Gene Tunny  34:20

Yeah. Okay. Very good. So that’s one thing I really liked about that paper. And I’m going to put a link in the show notes because I think it’s Yeah, I think that’s great. Okay, AI, you mentioned AI, what are you concerned about there? Exactly. If the experts are formulating the response, what are you actually concerned about there?


Peter Kurti  34:37

Oh, no, I think we need we will need to be very attentive to expert advice when it comes to AI because it’s, it seems to me from my layman’s perspective as a non computer expert, that it seems to me that experts themselves are debating about the capacity of AI and these large language models and generative AI to assume increasingly demanding roles. And this is a long standing issue in, in areas like philosophy of mind, and certainly in cognitive science about what consciousness is and whether a machine can be conscious. And we don’t know. And I don’t think the experts know. And there are some AI some some experts who are calling for us to slow down and take things more steadily, others who are quite happy to let the horse out of the stable, well it’s out of the stable but let the horse gallop at whatever speed it wants. So I think that that’s an example of an area where we clearly are going to have to depend upon experts. And it will be foolish not to, but at the same time, we need to, we need to accept that there will be dissent within expert groups. And we need to be comfortable with that dissent, with that dissent, and we need to, in a sense, not abdicate responsibility for my for making our own decisions about these things to experts, and to to attend as best we can, to what experts are saying and to think critically, about how we ourselves respond to what they’re saying. I think AI is very exciting. And I think it’s it’s whether it’s in, in in medicine, or space exploration or, or defence, AI is rapidly changing the way we we interact with technology, but we don’t quite know how it’s going to go. And I think we need to be, as I said, we need to be attentive to what experts are actually saying and to follow the debate, you know, not to give all the authority and all the power away.


Gene Tunny  36:47

Yeah, gotcha. One of the conclusions you reach, you note that this report has argued that any economic account of experts, which takes into consideration the tenants of public choice theory. So that’s something I’ve covered on the show before, I’ll put a link in the show notes to that episode. So any economic account must always allow for the influence of personal interest, opinions and prejudices of those providing expert advice. So do you see that that has been? That has been a serious problem? Do you have any examples of that Peter, are there any examples that come to mind?


Peter Kurti  37:26

I know we’ve talked a lot about COVID in our conversation, but I think COVID provides a good example of that. This notion of information choice theory is an idea I discovered with the writings of Roger Koppl, who of course, develops as you’ve mentioned, public choice theory, but really, information choice theory. Koppl is arguing that perverse outcomes can occur when expert advice is is tended that experts themselves will be motivated by self interest. And he would say that what we have to do is abandon the idea that experts seek only the truth without regard to motives such as fame and fortune. And that sounds a bit cynical in some ways, but I think Koppl is is right that we can’t, we must imagine that experts themselves have got are devoid of human motivation or ambition or desire, and accepting that that’s just the case that is human nature, that Koppl argues that information choice theory suggests that what we need to do is have is to avoid situations where one body of experts has a monopoly over opinion, but they must be able to compete with one another, an example that he cites, and I’m not sure it applies in quite the same way in Australia, but one of the examples he cites is forensic medicine. And he argues that, that when there is no competition about forensic scientists, amongst forensic scientists, and forensic medicine is devoid of those the competing voices of experts, there’s a danger of, of scientific error, which of course, being forensic medicine can in turn lead to instances of injustice, and that where there is more than one forensic medical point of view, the there is a greater chance that error will be avoided and therefore injustice avoided. Now it does happen to an extent here we know in each state and territory of this country, forensic medicine has led to injust, miscarriages of justice, which are then which are then corrected. The problem in the United States is that the death penalty is is reasonably widespread, and that although that can take many years, faulty forensic medicine, forensic research can lead to, you know, very draconian punishments. We don’t have that quite that problem here. But it’s an example that Koppl cites and I think it’s a it’s an interesting one that we would do well to attend to.


Gene Tunny  40:02

Okay, I’ll have to look up his work. I wasn’t, I’m not familiar with Koppl. Did you, was he in the public choice school?


Peter Kurti  40:09

No, he is, it’s Roger Koppl he’s actually it’s finance and financial management. He teaches, he teaches, I’ve not got the book right beside me.


Gene Tunny  40:21

That’s okay. I’ll put it in the show notes. Is he at Syracuse in, in the States?


Peter Kurti  40:26

Yes I think he is, I think he is. And the book that he wrote a really interesting book was Expert Failure, a book published in 2018.


Gene Tunny  40:35

Yeah, I’ll definitely look into that sounds. Sounds interesting. Okay. Before we wrap up, I just want to ask you again about? Well, I want to ask about monetary policy, because you mentioned this is one area where and this is a case study you give in your paper, this is one area where delegation can be justified. Now, could you explain why that is? Peter, why we would delegate the monetary policy decision. So changing the cash rate in Australia, changing the federal funds rate, why we would delegate that to either the Reserve Bank of Australia board or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank?


Peter Kurti  41:13

Well, it’s an interesting example. And I think, in a way, it’s a timely example, because the, and again this really flowed out of the way in which the Reserve Bank was considered to have performed in the wake of COVID, not raising interest rates fast enough, not getting on top of the not, not, tapping, trapping that inflationary genie in the bottle promptly enough. And so there was a review. And there was a feeling one of the recommendations in the review was that there should be this, this monetary check, what’s it called a monetary? That’s right, the Monetary Policy Committee, Monetary Policy Board that’s it, that there should be a separate board that will advise the Reserve Bank board about what to do. And there’s this view that, in fact, a view put forward by Peter here, that the the Reserve Bank, governors are well, meaning amateurs, and that’s possibly true. Not all of them are, but they’re engaged in business and corporate and economic life in the country, given that the Reserve Bank has a target band of inflation, and there are ways of meeting that target. And the board has to make a decision about interest rates in order to try to meet that inflationary target. It involves some very difficult some very technical decisions that are really beyond the capacity of ordinary members of the public. So I think I use as that as an example of an instance where we do need experts. But we mustn’t abdicate all responsibility, and that they need to be held to account in in some ways, and I think some it or the way the monetary policy board was promoted in the review. And the way it’s been greeted in the press, by some people, is that this body of experts will now correct and avoid all the failings of the Reserve Bank. And I think that’s a problem. I think that we need that sort of advice. But there were commentators like John Edwards was one of them, who wrote in the Australian saying that actually, the Reserve Bank didn’t do such a bad job when you consider other central banks around the world in western democracies, that the Reserve Bank board didn’t do such a bad job. And I think there’s this idea that now we’ve got the experts, everything will just be fine. And we won’t have those mistakes again. And I cite it as an example, because I think it’s an area where we do need experts, we do need people who are proficient in the complex technicality of monetary monetary policy. But in the sense it’s an instance of that might be an example of information choice theory where you need to account for the fact that even these experts with these technocratic experts, even these people have, have human failings, desires, ambitions, and goals. We cannot think that somehow there is this pure, disinterested advice. That’s been that’s been tendered. And I cite the Reserve Bank. And the other example I cite is ICAC The Independent Commission Against Corruption, because it shows actually how in a sense how complex modern life in a country like Australia is, and that there’s no rule. You can’t say, well, we need experts in these situations but not in those situations. We need experts in in different ways for differing rules, but we have to think about how we use them. So if we have a monetary policy board, is this board a board that is going to be accountable? To who? The treasurer, perhaps, the board? Probably not, it’s independent, who appoints them, and how, for how long are they appointed? and how they removed? Those are the sorts of questions that I think we need to ask about such a board. And that’ll be an example of the kind of institutional integrity that I’m talking about. Where we think about, what are the parameters of control? What are the terms of office? How are the people appointed, how they removed? What are the criteria that are used to make those appointments? And you may feel at the end? Well, that’s all a bit fuzzy. And I suppose in a sense, it is fuzzy. We these are, there is nothing, there are no hard and fast rules about how we approach these questions. I don’t think that means the questions are unimportant, nor do I think it means we should avoid asking them.


Gene Tunny  45:40

Yeah. So that Peter, the other Peter, you mentioned is Peter Tulip, Chief Economist at Centre for Independent Studies, and Peter’s argued that there should be a separate monetary policy board separate from the the bank board with that could run the Reserve Bank. And yeah, look, there are some there are arguments in favour of it. I don’t know whether it’ll actually mean we get better decisions. It might. Because the the current board does have the, it’s got some RBA members on it. It’s got the Treasury Secretary, and then it’s got, you know, it’s getting all the advice from the Reserve Bank. So maybe we could get better decisions. I don’t know. I’d be willing to have the experiment, it’s possibly worth doing the experiment. But one of the things I would point out too or one thing I should note is that, you know, there is a delegation already to the board from the government. I mean, the government, the Treasurer doesn’t make the interest rate decision that is delegated to the Reserve Bank board and economists have generally, you know, most they all sort of agree that that’s a great thing, because, well, monetary policy is a technical decision, we want to keep the politicians as far away as that away from it as possible, because their political interests could be in favour of inflation, getting some short term, you know, giving the economy a short term boost prior to the election, accepting some inflation that comes later, because they want to get elected so that there’s a risk there. So that’s why that’s been delegated. And then what Peter’s arguing for as well, we should then go even further than that, and have a or have a special Monetary Policy Committee with expert economists on it. So you know, really increase the expertise of the body that’s making that interest rate decision here in Australia. Yeah.


Peter Kurti  47:37

And I should say that Peter was kind enough to read that section of the report and gave some helpful feedback. And it was I incorporated a number of his comments in that section. So that I, he corrected any sort of that I was drifting at one point. I mean, I’m not an economist, and I was grateful to Peter for so he’s read this. And he knows what I’m, what I’m saying.


Gene Tunny  48:00

Very good. Okay. And, yeah, I guess the point is that we’re delegating the the technocratic decision on the exact interest rate at a particular in a particular month. But the government does still decide what the target is it decides what the it reaches an agreement with the Reserve Bank on the conduct of monetary policy. So they’re not, they’re not completely abrogating or dodging responsibility for it. They are, they are still accountable. The government is involved in it, but they’re not making the technocratic decision on the interest rate, which could be problematic if they were involved in that. Because for that reason that I mentioned that the you could end up with really bad policy and evidence from the 80s. From before the 80s. It was, the evidence came, I think it was Alesina or in the 90s, late 80s, who showed that central banks that are more independent, that don’t have that the government telling them what they should be doing with monetary policy. Those countries ended up with better inflation outcomes, so lower inflation. So that’s, that’s why it’s good to delegate that decision too.


Peter Kurti  49:17

And I agree with you, I remember when the the the Blair government was elected in 97. Very soon after the tre.., the chancellor, the Treasurer, Gordon Brown, declared the independence of the Bank of England, that had needed to happen long ago. And I mean, Australia had got an independent bank had already got an independent central bank. And I think that that’s very important because we can imagine that for example, if the Anthony Albanese decides to go for a double dissolution, we’re talking now on the last day of July, but if he decides to go for a double dissolution, he’s not going to want to run on on on on his economic policy at the moment because Australians are very cheesed off with the way things are going and so it’d be very tempting for a government to tweak interest rates with if they’ve got their eye on an election. So I think having, it depends it’s very important. And why I cite the example is because I think it’s an it shows the complexity of the relationship between experts and their elected overseers and how that relationship, how is managed, how they are held accountable, and how we decide to what extent they are, they enjoy autonomy and to what extent they need to be to be reined in. There’s a phrase that is used by one of the writers that I quote on this, because there’s a lot of literature about expertise, which was, so it’s a very interesting paper to research and write. He talks, Michael Schudson talks about, we need to work out the length of the leash on which we keep experts, it can’t be too short, otherwise they won’t be able to do their job, but it can’t be too long, otherwise, we won’t, you know, they’ll they’ll just make decisions without any kind of accountability at all. They have to be autonomous, but not too autonomous. How do we calculate the length of that lease? It’s a very difficult thing to do. But I think that I am completely in favour of an independent central bank. And I certainly wouldn’t want this paper to be interpreted by some as advocating for a return to government control.


Gene Tunny  51:20

Oh, no, no, no, not at all. I read that section, I thought Oh, yep. That’s That’s right. And the one thing I would have added into it was that point about how having that delegation of the actual choice of the policy rate that’s, that’s good from the point of view that that independence does lead to better or lower inflation outcomes. So that’s something that’s been widely researched and, and proven so very good. Okay. Peter Kurti. Thanks so much. It’s been great. And I agree, we need to think more about the role of experts and how they’re used in policymaking. It’s important if we have another pandemic, let’s hope not, but also in decision making and all the other great challenges that we face, challenges relating to climate change challenges related to AI. So it’s important to think about the role of experts in advising government and we want we want to avoid the experts taking over, we need governments to be weighing up the the advice thinking about it, you had that the great, the trilogy of of tips, which was good, the, you know, being courageous and tolerating dissent and what was it, thinking about, was it accountability?

Peter Kurti  52:37

Institutional integrity I’ve called it.

Gene Tunny  52:40

Institutional integrity. Very good. That’s great. Peter Kurti thanks so much for your time. I’ve really enjoyed it.


Peter Kurti  52:47

Thank you, Gene. It’s been a real pleasure. I’ve really enjoyed our conversation


Gene Tunny  52:53

Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.


53:40

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey. Head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.

Categories
Podcast episode

Highlights of last 100 incl. Brad DeLong, Sir David Hendry, Leonora Risse, Andrew May – EP200

In this special 200th episode of Economics Explored, host Gene Tunny is joined by Tim Hughes to discuss some of the highlights from the last 100 episodes. The episode features clips of Brad DeLong (UC Berkeley) describing how we’ve been slouching towards utopia since 1870, Sir David Hendry (Oxford) on the merits of small modular nuclear reactors, Leonora Risse (RMIT) on the benefits of diversity, and Super Forecaster Warren Hatch on what makes a good forecaster, among others.  
Please get in touch with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored

You can listen to the episode via the embedded player below or via podcasting apps including Google PodcastsApple PodcastsSpotify, and Stitcher.

What’s covered in EP200

Links relevant to the conversation

Episodes from which clips were taken from:

Slouching Towards Utopia w/ Brad DeLong – EP163 – Economics Explored

The Progress Illusion w/ Jon Erickson – EP166 – Economics Explored

Thriving w/ Wayne Visser, Cambridge & Antwerp sustainable business expert – EP130

Sir David Hendry on economic forecasting & the net zero transition – EP198

Superforecasting w/ Warren Hatch, CEO of Good Judgment – EP176 – Economics Explored

Women in Economics with Dr Leonora Risse of RMIT, Melbourne – EP124

Truth (or the lack of it) in politics and how to think critically with help from Descartes – EP123 – Economics Explored

The importance of physical & mental health for top CEO performance w/ Andrew May – EP193

Link to info about Windscale fire mentioned in conversation between Gene and Tim:

Windscale fire – Wikipedia

Transcript:
Highlights of last 100 incl. Brad DeLong, Sir David Hendry, Leonora Risse, Andrew May – EP200

N.B. This is a lightly edited version of a transcript originally created using the AI application otter.ai. It was then checked over by a human, Tim Hughes from Adept Economics, to see if the otter missed anything in it’s rush to catch fish or star in YouTube videos. It may not be 100 percent accurate, but should be pretty close. If you’d like to quote from it, please check the quoted segment in the recording.

Gene Tunny  00:06

Welcome to the Economics Explored podcast, a frank and fearless exploration of important economic issues. I’m your host Gene Tunny. I’m a professional economist and former Australian Treasury official. The aim of this show is to help you better understand the big economic issues affecting all our lives. We do this by considering the theory evidence and by hearing a wide range of views. I’m delighted that you can join me for this episode, please check out the show notes for relevant information. Now on to the show.

Hello, thanks for tuning in to the show. It’s episode 200. And joining me this episode to chat about some of the highlights of the last 100 episodes is Tim Hughes, Tim, good to have you with me again.


Tim Hughes  00:56

Hey Gene, good to be here. Thanks for inviting me on, and congratulations on your bicentenary.


Gene Tunny  01:01

Yes, yes. Thanks, Tim. Well, you’ve been part of, you know, quite a few episodes over the years, and I thought it’d be good to get you on to get your perspective as the man on the street so…


Tim Hughes  01:16

Isn’t it the guy on the Clapham omnibus, is that right?

Gene Tunny  01:19

Yes. The man on the Clapham omnibus, I think it is. Yes. Exactly.

Tim Hughes  01:23

Looking forward to it.

Gene Tunny  01:25

Right. Well, that’s the reasonable man test. So yes, what’s the reasonable man on the street think?


Tim Hughes  01:33

Well, I’ll try and be as reasonable as I can.


Gene Tunny  01:35

Okay, so what I’m going to do, Tim, is I’ll play some of the clips that I think are the best of Economics Explored over the last 100 episodes. Now. I mean, there’s so much good content. And I mean, they’re great. There’s great material that I haven’t been able to include. But these are ones that I really think are great. But look, I’m grateful for all the people who come on the show. So yeah, let’s get into it, we’ll go over these ones that I think are, you know, really standouts. So okay, so to start with, I’m going to play a clip from the episode we did, so this was episode 163, last year with Brad DeLong.


Brad DeLong  02:24

And that’s the state of the world before 1870. And that means that unless you’re in an extremely lucky place, or like Australia, or an extremely lucky class, that life is going to be kind of brutal, short and without very many options, which means that in most times, in most places, governance is going to be how does an elite figure out how to grab enough for itself and maintain its rule over society. And after 1870, everything changes, technological progress becomes rapid, the technological competence of the human race globally doubles every generation, you quickly get a world in which people are kind of rich enough that infant mortality falls substantially. And with that falling infant mortality, and with the erosion of patriarchy, all of a sudden, you don’t have to concentrate a lot of effort on having children, to be confident that if you reach the age of 50, you’ll still be able to run your own life. And so you’ll we get the demographic transition, now headed toward a stable world population of 9 billion. So for the first time after 1870, technology wins the race with human fertility, you know, and we begin to look forward to a time when humanity will be able to bake a sufficiently large economic pie so that everyone can have enough. And you know, people back in 1870, and before, you know, they thought most of the problems of society came because incomes were low, and technology was underdeveloped. And you had this elite running a kind of domination and exploitation game on everyone. And once you can bake a sufficiently large economic pie for everyone to have enough, those things should fall away. And the problems of properly slicing and tasting the economic pie, right? Of equitably distributing it and then utilising it so that people can feel safe and secure and live lives in which they’re healthy and happy. Yep, those should be relatively straightforward to solve. And so we today, at least we today in the rich countries should be living in a Utopia, which we are manifestly not. And so the story of history after 1870 is how we’re well on the way to solving the problem of baking a sufficiently large economic pie. While the problems of slicing and tasting of utilise, of distributing and utilising it continue to flummox us.


Gene Tunny  04:59

Okay, so I thought that was a really great clip, Tim and I was talking to Brad about his new book, or new last year, Slouching Towards Utopia. And it’s a the economic history of the world, basically. And, yeah, I thought that was a really nice way that he talked about just all the, the economic gains we’ve had since 1870. He sees 1870 as the hinge of history, before that we’re in this sort of subsistence way of living. And then after that, when the industrial revolution really took off, and we got electrification, then we just had these massive increases in living standards. So we’ve solved well with I wouldn’t say solved, but we’re so much wealthier, and the, you know, our production possibilities are so much greater. But we’ve still got, we haven’t got everything, you know, perfectly right, obviously. And there are issues, arguably issues of distribution. And there are also environmental issues, too, that I wanted to talk about. So I thought that was a good one to kick off with, because it reminds us that when we think about the economy, when, as economists we should be thinking not just about the GDP, not just about production, but we should also think about distribution. And we should also think about other impacts, so impacts on environment, etc.


Tim Hughes  06:29

Yeah, it’s actually a really good one to start with, because it sort of sets the scene. I know you’ve grouped together a few clips, that are of the same kind of genre. So this is a good one to lead off. It gives a good sort of snapshot of the, of where we’re at and where we’ve come from in the last 150 years. So it’s the equitable distribution question, I guess, is, is really a big one. And of course, a very, as simple as it should be, or could be, clearly it’s, it’s not simple to execute it, it ends up with a lot of the equity being in the hands of a few and people are struggling in great numbers around the world. So that slicing up at the pie seems to be a big challenge that we haven’t really cracked,


Gene Tunny  07:14

Well, fewer people struggling around the world than previously. So I think one of the great things about the last 30 or 40 years, particularly since the economic reforms in China, as we have seen hundreds of millions of people get out of dire poverty. So that’s great. And that’s a that’s a real win for market economics. So it’s a, you know, a win for free markets. Now, I think what Brad is, he’s really concerned about what’s happening in the States, because in the States, particularly since the 80s, you you’ve seen a lot of the gains, the economic gains, go to the top, go to the top 10%, top 1%, top 0.1%. So that’s one of the things he’s concerned about. Now. You know, there’s a there’s a trade off there, because there’s this trade off between equity and efficiency. The big trade-off as Arthur Okun called it. Whereby, I mean, you don’t, you need some inequality. I mean inequality is unavoidable to an extent and you need some you need rewards for people taking risks and working hard. Otherwise, people will, they won’t, they won’t be working hard or taking risks, and you can end up with the Soviet Union. Right? So we want to have a system of rewards. But then there is a question of, you know, what are the right tax policy settings to make sure that those who can pay more, those who can afford it pay more? There’s some redistribution, there’s a, there’s a big debate to be had about that what those appropriate settings are?


Tim Hughes  08:55

Yeah, yeah, I know, we get into a little bit more detail in certain areas in the next few clips. But it’s a massive conversation, and knowing our ability to go at great depth with these, I’m going to cut myself off there, because I’ve got more to say on that on the next few clips.


Gene Tunny  09:12

Very good. Well, I should play some more clips. I thought that, that one from Brad DeLong is Professor of Economics at University of California Berkeley, so very distinguished American economist, a former senior official in the US Treasury, and in the Clinton administration, so very prominent economist, so I was really glad to have him on the show. Okay, so that’s, that was from Brad DeLong. The next clip I want to play is from Jon Erickson, and he’s an ecological economist. He’s from Vermont, and he’s been an adviser to Bernie Sanders. And he’s got some interesting things to say about, well he’s got his, you know, an interesting perspective on the constraints on economic growth. So I’ll play this now. This is from episode 166.


Jon Erickson  10:01

Well, what would an economy look like that was built on maintenance, resilience and cooperation instead of growth, efficiency and competition, right? A late stage maturing economy like yours in the Australia ours in the US. So that’s what I’m asking, you know, an economy, a mature economy should have different goals than an economy at pioneering stages. So it really is about a reprioritization of our goals, especially on consumption, right? Because there’s ample evidence to show that we in the West are over consumers, and our kind of addiction to consumption is creating psychological problems, social problems, that consumption has been kind of become a cure for social ills, right, like a distraction. I mean, the whole advertising industry is designed around the idea of kind of making you and I feel bad about ourselves, right? To sort of fill the void, with more consumption. And I actually think this is one of the lessons coming out of COVID, right? It’s this sort of people were, especially, you know, high income people who, who could weather the storm, better than most, were forced to slow down, were forced to be at home, were forced to kind of reevaluate life’s priorities, and found out that, you know, this kind of ever burning hamster wheel of economic growth isn’t all that it’s cut out to be. So it’s a reprioritization of goals, which is going to have to reprioritize policy instruments. Daly, Herman Daly, used the analogy of a Plimsoll line, I’m not sure I’m pronouncing that right, of a cargo ship, right. So this is the line that’s painted on a ship, very easy technology. And as the as the cargo ship is loaded, it sinks into the water. And when they get to the line, you’re supposed to stop, right, because you’re in danger in danger of overloading the ship. So if we sort of reprioritize and think about the Plimsoll line of an economy, we can’t just more equally or equitably distribute the cargo of an overloaded ship and expect it to be resilient. We can’t just more efficiently load an overloaded ship, and expect it to weather the storm, as the Plimsoll line goes underwater, right. And there’s ample evidence to say that we are a kind of in an overshoot on a lot of environmental parameters, you’re in danger of sinking the ship, especially in stormy waters. So this analogy implies that as we run up against planetary boundaries, planetary limits to growth, the scale of the economic system is way more important to stress than distribution or efficiency. And if we can’t count on a growing system to solve distribution problems, then we’re going to have to quickly think about the fairness of the distribution of benefits and costs of that system. And then and only then can we get to efficiency, which is the priority of economics. So this means that you know, new policy instruments that that focus on scale, distribution, then efficiency is the way to go. And I talk a lot about this in the last chapter of the book, as I kind of wrestle with the idea of, how did I put it, radical pragmatism, right? Lots of pragmatic things that we can do now, for example, to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, you know, home weatherization, and carbon taxation, and, you know, maintenance of our systems, electrification of transportation, transition to renewable energy. But all of these are really hard to do in an economy that continues to bloat, an economy that continues to grow. So we have to be thinking about the scale of the system and that’s probably the radical part of radical pragmatism, right? What’s it going to take to rein power away from the status quo, that part of the system that’s benefiting from this growth model, and create an economy that works for all?


Gene Tunny  14:25

Okay, so that was Jon Erickson, from University of Vermont. Jon Erickson is the David Blittersdorf, Professor of Sustainability, Science and Policy at the University of Vermont. And we were talking about his new book, The Progress Illusion, and I thought that was a great clip, Tim, to play because it’s a completely different perspective from my perspective. And so I’m all for having, well being open to different perspectives and having that conversation. I think he makes you know, some of the points I agree with in terms of what we’ve got to do, I mean, I think long term, there’s no doubt we’ve got to get off fossil fuels. I agree with that. We’ve got to electrify, I’m not disagreeing with that. I’m probably sceptical of what, to what extent we’re, we’re hitting these planetary boundaries already. To what extent we, we should be trying to, I don’t know, he didn’t use the term degrow. But there is this, you’re aware of this term degrowth, aren’t you? And this is something I’m looking at, at the moment for a paper for Centre of Independent Studies. So I think the whole Ecological Economics field, I think, coming out of that there is this, this concern that we are hitting up against these planetary boundaries, we need a, if not degrowing, if we don’t degrow, we at least have to have a steady state economy. They’re worried that we’re just, you know, this, this ever growing economy, ever growing demands for resources that’s causing us a lot of problems. So it’s an interesting perspective. I mean, I’m, I’m a bit sceptical of it. But I did enjoy that conversation with Jon, he’s, he’s a great guy, and I thought that would be a good clip to play.


Tim Hughes  16:09

Yeah, I really enjoyed this one. I think the whole aspect of sustainable contraction, for instance, which we’ve talked about before, as opposed to sustainable growth, like at some point, there’s only so much that can be done, there are parameters. I mean, I see the planetary parameters being quite clearly defined as we get, as the population gets bigger, 9 billion, 10 billion, up to 11 billion by the end of the century, forecasted population. You know, the oceans aren’t infinite, the atmosphere isn’t infinite, the soils, everything that we pollute, you know, we, there’s a point at which, with so many of us on the planet, that, yeah they’re the parameters, and I think they’re quite well defined, Whether people believe in climate change or not, I think the question should be that, given the, the fact that these aren’t infinite resources, at some point, it’s going to be an issue, even if people don’t think it’s an issue yet. And I think we do have the technology and the know-how, and the the will now to, to make ourselves more efficient. So we have less waste, cleaner energy, you know, look after the planet more. So it sort of fits in with, you know, environmentalists that have been talking about this for years. And I think, I think it’s great that it’s come to the fore in conversations around economic policy, because yes, I mean, for instance, I, I firmly believe that it’s really important, it’s possibly the most important thing that we could do, is to be really good in these areas. So talking about, you know, like, so from going from more and more, which we’ve had this incredible growth, you know, going back to Brad DeLong, from 1870 through to now, it’s all been more, more, more. And, and at some point, the question becomes, well can we do it better, better, better, not just more, more more like, it’s, we’ve got enough, like, we’ve got enough to feed the planet, for instance, we’ve got enough to feed everybody on the on the planet. But we don’t distribute it. You know, it’s the whole way of working out who gets what or how we manage our resources isn’t done well enough to do on a good social scale, or a scale that would work financially, economically. And I think that’s the right way to go about it. You know, he talks about the ever burning hamster wheel of economic growth, you know, and that’s a great, great term, radical pragmatism needed to sort of have a fresh look at how we do things. And I couldn’t agree more. I think it’s really good and clearly contentious and not easy to do. But I think that’s the right direction to point in. And there is momentum going towards us, you know, net zero for 2050 fits in with this kind of thinking. And it has a, you know, a lot of support behind it. And I think it’s good.


Gene Tunny  18:50

Yeah, I think the more, well we might have to have a, an episode on degrowth, specifically, because some of the more radical people who are concerned about these planetary boundaries would be saying that we need to do even more than net zero, right? Because conceivably, we could get to net zero, and still keep growing the economy. And there are people who are optimistic. And then there are others who say, well, though, those techno-optimists, they’re naive. Now, I mean, I’m a great believer in technology. And I think technology is one of the reasons that we have had that strong growth since 1870. Or we’ve had all of these amazing gains in productivity, gains and living standards, because we’ve managed to solve our problems, have managed to, we haven’t run out of resources, we’ve managed to, well we’ve explored with our new resources, we’ve switched to new sources. I mean, we switched from whale oil to, to oil to from originally from Pennsylvania and then from the Middle East and all other places. So we’ve managed to, to, you know, to actually to innovate to avoid those constraints. And we’ve historically we’ve been able to do that. Now, I’m not naive enough to think that we, you know, we’re always going to be able to do that. But so far, we’ve had an incredible run at it. Really? So we haven’t really hit those constraints we’ve managed to grow so far.


Tim Hughes  20:22

Well, as far as planetary constraints, I mean, I see that as a resources thing and space, air, water, you know, soil, those kinds of things. That’s what I was, was, yeah, I was reading into that.


Gene Tunny  20:34

And we’re trying to manage those, certainly, in Australia, I guess the problem is in, in other countries and in emerging economies, and you had that great chat with Guillaume Pitron didn’t you…


Tim Hughes  20:44

Yeah, I was thinking of that, too. And it is that thing about, and that’s part of managing our expectations, because the more, more, more in economic growth can be directly transferred over to us as humans materialistically wanting more, more and more, and so our driving, desire for these things, you know, for possessions, is part of that whole story. And so part of managing the planet’s resources better, I think, would also be a question of maybe managing our expectations better as well, you know, like, if we can, I don’t know, become more content with less, you know, which is is often referenced around the world where people seem to be extremely happy with very little because they they engage in, they have strong communities, they don’t necessarily necessarily have a lot of wealth or material goods. But they engage with the things that as humans, we, we need the most, which is social connection. And, you know, that contact, which is lacking more and more, there’s more loneliness in the Western world. And, you know, people unhappy, they have more, but they’re, they’re less happy. So it’s this thing of like, okay, well, maybe we need to look at that, as well as part of this whole conversation about our expectations and who we are as people and what we need as people.


Gene Tunny  22:02

Yeah, well, there’s that concept of the hedonic treadmill. Yeah, so I might put a link in the show notes to that, because you’re right, I mean, you can, at our standard of living, additional increases in standard of living aren’t necessarily going to make us happier, right? I mean, we can, we could be happier on much lower incomes than we do have in Australia. Well, this is what the…


Tim Hughes  22:25

Haha I know I’m kidding, we all we’re all sort of influenced by this, and I…


Gene Tunny  22:28

Or an average or a lower average, lower average income, I suppose. Because part of the problem, I guess, is the yeah, there’s the Keeping Up with the Joneses. And there are a lot of expectations on us.


Tim Hughes  22:40

Well, again, I know, this comes up in one of the other clips, you know, with, in the realms of free market, and you know, the ability for entrepreneurs to do their thing, to be supported or not, etc. And so, with those freedoms come risk, you know, and that’s part of the game if you like, but with most of the western countries, there were social systems that are good enough to help people who are struggling, and you know, that’s, that’s so important to have that, of course, and it gets into the realms of UBI, universal basic income, where that may form part of a fairer society. But you know, it’s, I think, again, it’s, it’s good to point in that direction to see where we might be able to manage, I, you’re the policy guy, I don’t know much about it, until I see it and see what it does as a man on the street, the guy on the street. But clearly, there seems to be a lot of wealth in a few hands and not so much in others. So if it can all be managed better, to be better, equitable distribution, then I’d like to see what that looks like.


Gene Tunny  23:45

Well this is what a lot of the political debates are about. I mean, yeah, again, it’s that trade off, right. I mean, equity and efficiency. I mean, if you have too high tax rates, and you know, you’re not encouraging entrepreneurship. You’re not encouraging people to work hard. But then again, I mean, if if you don’t have some form of progressive taxation, then you can end up with high inequality. And, you know, arguably, what you’re seeing in the US at the moment. You’ve got the, yeah this huge gap between the wealthy and the US and, you know, the middle class, the former middle class. I mean, it’s there’s still a middle class, but it’s not as large as it was back in the, in that post war era. The first 30 years after the war, so yeah, there’s there’s big issues there. Tim, I’d better move on to the next clip, I guess, because I want to play a clip from someone who’s super optimistic. So a South African Professor, I think he was South African, Wayne Visser and he’s, he’s got some role at Cambridge. I’ll put a link in the show notes. And he’s also he’s a Cambridge pracadamic. That’s right. Remember, we were chatting about that? Yes. Actually, he’s not South African. He was born in Zimbabwe. Okay, very good. Well, Wayne, he wrote a book, Thriving, and I interviewed him last year. And that was episode 130. So we’ll hear from Wayne. And he’s got a really optimistic perspective on just how technology is going to help us get out, or get us out of a lot of these environmental challenges.


Wayne Visser  25:29

Eu Green Deal, it’s effectively the Europe strategy on climate change, very, very comprehensive and very ambitious. And it touches everything. It’s got a Farm to Fork area, which touches agriculture, it’s got a mobility area, all around electrification of mobility, it’s got a circular economy element, it’s got a finance element. So yeah, I mean, it’s, it’s a very, very strong policy and it’s being, in some ways, you know, America is, is trying to copy that with the new Green Deal. So, so yes, policy helps with the coherence piece. And then you’ve got creativity, which we’ve talked about a little already. So for things to change for all living systems to change, they need innovation, and that happens through diversity. Again, something we’re working very hard on, but we, we are living in an age of innovation, no doubt about it. And many of our most difficult problems, we are seeing some amazing solutions coming. If we just pick on one, for example, we know electric cars, I’ll leave that alone, but just remember that that is changing much faster than people think. I mean, Norway is banning fossil fuel cars by 2025. That’s just around the corner. And most other countries, you know, UK, it’s 2030. So within 10 years, it’ll really be something to watch. But take food, for example. There’s a whole movement of course around going more plant based, that makes sense from a health perspective, because 20% of mortality can be reduced, just by going more plant based, but also from a climate perspective, and a biodiversity perspective, and of course, animal welfare perspective. But here we see innovation, you know, you’ve seen the Beyond Burger and the Impossible Burger, you know, these are really engineered to look and taste, you know, like the real thing I know that may be a hard sell in in Australia but uh, on blind tests, actually, they they’ve done extremely well. Not only that, but we’ve got cultured meat coming. You know, this is grown in labs, meat essentially grown fermented, grown in vats, like you do for insulin. And this is this is going to completely change everything because again, you don’t have the the input of land and water. You have much lower energy input and you’re not killing anything. So you’re literally just taking cells, live cells from a cow, for example. And you’re creating that is already in Singapore, you can already go to a restaurant that sells cultured chicken. So this is innovation happening very fast, massive amount of investment going into this.


Gene Tunny  28:27

Okay, so that was Dr. Wayne Visser, Professor of Integrated Value and holder of the Chair and Sustainable Transformation at Antwerp Management School. So he wrote a book, Thriving, I was really grateful to have him on the show last year. Tim I thought that was a really good, well, there was some great observations about technological change. And I mean, he had lots of other good examples in his book, I’d highly recommend it. He’s someone who is incredibly optimistic. So I was really glad to talk to him last year. Do you have any reflections on what Wayne said in that clip?


Tim Hughes  28:59

Yeah, I thought it was really good. I’m going to quote from him, he said, “for all living things or systems to change, they need innovation and that happens through diversity.” And it’s great seeing that highlighted as something that is perfectly natural in our world. Like it’s funny diversity is often seen as something that we have to accommodate or get used to and, and bring in, and it’s like, it’s been there all the time. It’s, it’s a perfectly normal part of how we’ve evolved, of how everything’s evolved. And, and the importance of diversity, the role that diversity plays in so many different things. And again, I know this is going to come up with a couple of other clips. But it just shows I mean, and to have, to have it mentioned in this regard, it’s like yeah, great, that that makes so much sense. And also you can see how those things are coming together with technology that fits in with the economic efficiency, if you like or the way of making sure that we can do something better instead of just more and more well, how can we do it differently? You know, what would be a different way of doing this and, and those plant-based meats or meat alternatives are good examples of how we can do something where it’s better for animal welfare, it’s better for human health, it’s better for the environment, there’s a lot of wins with that direction in that area.


Gene Tunny  30:15

Well, I think the cultured meat or the meat grown in a lab that’s effective, it’s effectively the same thing. It’s like the real thing. But you don’t have the you don’t have to raise the livestock and you don’t have the all of the ethical and animal welfare issues associated with with livestock. So I think that’d be terrific. If we could do that on scale.


Tim Hughes  30:36

Yeah, I think there are still a couple of ethical issues around that. But then ethically, you know, as long as it’s safe, and all these different things, as long as it can, you know, tick that ethical box. It’s ethically better than, you know, the the amount of meat that’s going through the current system with the abbatoirs and everything. I eat meat, you know, so like, you know, I wouldn’t, I’m not wanting to be a hypocrite about this and I think meat is important as a choice. But I would like to see, raised ethically, killed ethically, you know, as much as possible. And to have less, you know, I’d be I’d happily eat less meat, with these kinds of alternatives available to, you know, sustain us with our protein intake, for instance.


Gene Tunny  31:18

Yeah, yeah. Very good. Well, I thought that was great from Wayne now, just on this whole theme of economy and equity and environment. Then this theme, I thought I’d play a clip from our recent conversation with Sir David Hendry. So professor at Oxford, he’s an absolute legend in econometrics. And we will, I was really glad to have him on the show. And he made some really interesting observations on the potential role of nuclear energy. So that that surprised me in that conversation. And it’s good that we’re glad that we got onto that subject. So I’ll just play this clip from Sir David Hendry.

We don’t have nuclear energy here, and the opposition party is trying to push it. But then I think there’s going to be a lot of community resistance to that here in Australia.


David Hendry  32:08

Yeah, I can believe that. But do people understand small nuclear reactors? That’s the only ones we’re arguing for, not the big ones, the small ones. In Britain, lots of big ones. And they’ve produced a lot of transuranic waste, that’s going to be a huge problem for humanity. Now, there are two advantages to small nuclear reactors. One, they can use that transuranic waste as their fuel, and greatly reduce the amount of radioactivity that needs to be dealt with from it. And secondly, they’ve been used in nuclear submarines for 50 years, and there’s never been an accident. So they’re very safe, and they don’t have any fissionable material that terrorists might want for bombs. I mean, the stuff they’re using is useless. Other than burning up the waste that’s a problem anyway. If the public knew that these are harmless, that they’re getting rid of a problem, you don’t have nuclear reactors so it’s less of an argument there. But in Britain, people would jump at the chance to cut the amount of nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of burying it, or putting it in deep caves, etc. And these guys can do it.


Gene Tunny  33:23

Right yeah. These are the small modular reactors are they?

David Hendry  33:26

Yes. they are indeed,

Gene Tunny  33:23

Yeah, I think that’s what Peter Dutton, who’s the Opposition Leader here, what he’s talking about.

David Hendry  33:33

Good for him. I think they are actually an important component, but only one possible component, of an electricity provision that would give more energy security and, and be something that can work in almost all circumstances.


Gene Tunny  33:50

Okay, that was Sir David Hendry on nuclear energy. Tim, I mean, we’ve chatted about this conversation with Sir David before, haven’t we? And we both thought, yeah, good stuff.


Tim Hughes  34:00

Yeah it was great and this was something for instance, that I hadn’t heard of before, the SMRs, small modular reactors. And it’s funny that I like it made me very much aware of my own prejudice towards something nuclear, towards being a viable power source because it gets such a bad rap, understandably, from you know, Chernobyl and Windscale and different things around the world where the consequences are catastrophic. And the amount of waste, nuclear waste that has to be buried, like is dangerous for 1000s of years, whatever it like, it’s not great. So the clean, the push for clean energy, seems to be something that would be without anything nuclear. However, it was, it was good because that my first response was like, that doesn’t sound great. But listening to these SMRs, or small modular reactors, and what their capabilities are and what the consequences are. You know, here we are in 2023. There’s a net zero target for 2050. There’s a transition period there of 27 years and in that transitional period, you know, something like SMRs could well be part of that picture to be able to get us through that time or may be part of the future for longer. But I think it helps in opening up the conversation about what these, this range of possibilities might look like. It does not, it seems to be clear, there’s not one thing that’s going to be our main power source. It may be but there’s certainly going to be several. And so if this forms part of that transition, or part of the solution, to be able to get us to net zero, then I think it’s really important to have the right conversations around it.


Gene Tunny  35:36

Absolutely. You mentioned Windscale, so I was I wasn’t aware of that. So there was a fire on 10, October 1957. The worst nuclear accident in the UK’s history. So yeah, I’ll put a link in the show notes to that, I wasn’t aware of that.


Tim Hughes  35:50

Up around the Lake District if I remember correctly around Cumbria? If it’s still called Cumbria, I’m not sure. It is that thing of like, you know, the consequences and concerns or, you know, naturally like, you know, people don’t want to be living near a nuclear reactor. And if they’re big ones, well, the, the spread or the the possible influence of, you know, geographically, the disaster zone is quite big. Right. So, these SMRs, it was interesting. That was something new. And, and hearing the rest of the talk with Sir David, it was like, well, this is coming from a guy who is looking towards net zero, you know, incredibly smart guy and this is the kind of thing that you know my ears really prick up when I see or hear people talking about these things. It’s like, ok, well, this, this is worth, you know, really considering or learning more about.


Gene Tunny  36:46

Okay, we’ll take a short break here for a word from our sponsor.


Female speaker  36:52

If you need to crunch the numbers, then get in touch with Adept Economics. We offer you frank and fearless economic analysis and advice. We can help you with funding submissions, cost benefit analysis studies, and economic modelling of all sorts. Our head office is in Brisbane, Australia, but we work all over the world. You can get in touch via our website, http://www.adepteconomics.com.au. We’d love to hear from you.


Gene Tunny  37:21

Now back to the show.

We might leave that theme now and move on to the next theme of of great clips from the last 100 episodes, which has to do with decision-making, forecasting and critical thinking. So the first clip I’ll play is from our conversation early this year, Tim with Warren Hatch, CEO of Good Judgement in New York City. So Warren’s been involved in the whole superforecasting project with Philip Tetlock. So I’m going to play a clip from Warren on what makes good forecasters.

How do you get on this superforecasting panel? Who’s a super forecaster? What are their characteristics?


Warren Hatch  38:05

That’s a great question. And that’s something, and something to keep in mind, too, is that in the research project, that wasn’t part of the research plan at all. They just observed that in the first year, there were some people who were consistently better than everybody else. And being researchers that caused a new research question, what would happen, they asked themselves, if we put them on small teams? Would they get better or would they revert to the mean? And they did not know at all, a lot of people thought there’d be a mean reversion, turns out, no, they continue to get even better. And so we still do the same process now with our public site, where we’ll just take within the top 1% of the forecasting population there, and other platforms too invite them to come and join the professionals. And they have certain things in common. For sure, they gave us a lot of psychometric tests, hours of them before we got to do the fun stuff, you know, when forecast on elections in Nigeria and the like, and then to see what kinds of characteristics correlated with subsequent accuracy. And there’s certain things that really pop out. One has been really good at pattern recognition, right? So you can think of, you know, you’ve got a mosaic about the future that you’re trying to fill in and see what’s coming faster than anybody else and fill in those tiles. And being good at that is a fundamental characteristic of a good forecaster. Another is being what they call cognitively reflective. And basically that means that if you’re confronted with a new situation, you don’t automatically go to what first pops into your head because what first pops into your head might not be right, you might be overfilling the mosaic too quickly and getting the wrong picture. So you want to slow down and in Kahneman terms, let system two be your friend. You know, it’s hard work, but that’s the way you get a better a better result. So those are two very fundamental characteristics that good forecasters have.


Gene Tunny  40:03

Okay, so that was Warren Hatch from Good Judgement. Tim, that was another great interview subject that you lined up along with Sir David Hendry. So well done on getting Warren onto the show. Yeah, I thought that was terrific. Everything he was saying there about the importance of pattern recognition and being cognitively, cognitively reflective. So any thoughts, any reactions?


Tim Hughes  40:28

Yeah, I loved this episode, I got so much from it. We’ll have a round two I’m sure, at some point soon. It was really interesting. And like, it fits in with a lot of the, well, conversations that we’ve had. I mean, for instance, you know, I try and bear those things in mind, you know, if, for my own decision-making, etc. So, so for instance, cognitive being cognitive, cognitive. I’ll start that one again. Gene.


Gene Tunny  40:56

Is that because I struggled with it?


Tim Hughes  40:59

No I’m just trying to make you look good! Being cognitively reflective, is what I, for instance, did with the SMRs that David Henry mentioned. So my first response was nuclear, nuclear, whatever, that doesn’t sound good. But keep listening, keep, keep the mind open as to what that might look like, you know, so there’s good lessons, there’s so much good stuff in that episode, with Warren Hatch, and everything he was doing and talking about. They’re all things that we can all do as humans in our everyday life. So you don’t have to be a super forecaster to benefit from those same practices. You can make better decisions for yourself, for your family, for your colleagues. It’s a good way to approach you know, the way our thought processes are. And yeah, I got a lot from it. I thought it was great. He didn’t actually mention in that clip. But in the episode, he did explain how important the diversity was in getting a group of super forecasters together. Yeah, that’s like six to 12 people and the importance of them not just coming from the same area. The reason that why they outperformed the CIA in a test was because the CIA are all white 50 year old males from the West Coast of America or from a very similar sort of background.


Gene Tunny  42:15

Yeah, East Coast. The old they used to talk about the wasps in the States, you know, from the East Coast, often from the ivy Ivy League schools, so they all went to prep schools, like you know, Phillips Exeter, or whatever.


Tim Hughes  42:31

So the lack of diversity in that regard, held them back as far as like having a better overview or being able to make a better forecast or decision on something. So again, it just showed it was another reason that diversity is such an important part of our build up as humans and you know, to be better as humans make better decisions. And in this case, better forecasts.


Gene Tunny  42:54

Excellent. So just on diversity you because that’s come up twice now, hasn’t it? I’ve got a clip on diversity from Leonora Risse is at RMIT. Leonora is as a former Queenslander. But she’s been doing great work down in Melbourne, she’s involved with the women’s, Women in Economics network, she’s really grown that. And yeah we had a conversation on women in economics in Australia. And we got into this issue of diversity. So Leonora is a Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. So I’ll play this clip from Leonora now.


Leonora Risse  43:36

The issue of diversity, at first glance, it’s about broadening topics, broadening ideas, and broadening the range of issues that are being considered. And then that is really a guard against the risks and the downfalls of what we might call groupthink. If people think the same, you are, by virtue, narrowing your spectrum of potential ideas and potential topics, and then by an extension of that is also the process. So think economics, really an analysis, you know, from identification of the problem, to analysis of the problem to a solution to the problem is a process of interrogation and asking the right questions and deciding on methodologies. It’s all a set of decisions. And what you find in this research is that, that process, you can shortcut it if you all think the same, and you probably just have a standard way of doing things and are less likely to interrogate, you know, are we taking the right decision here? Is there an alternative? Is there a perspective, we just haven’t thought about? Where can we road test this? And if you had that diversity within your pool of minds and brains working on this, you are more likely to engage in those process of interrogation. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s easy this, there’s a quote in the paper to where I found this amazing quote by Justice, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And she talks about dissent, you know, having a different differing opinion. And when they’re, when dissent occurs amongst judges or lawyers, you know, weighing up the evidence, it necessitates a deeper and more robust and more thorough interrogation of the evidence, it forces you to come up with a more convincing argument or to question any assumptions that you may have jumped to. And I love that quote from from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because I think it has such applicability to economics, where we are, we are weighing up the evidence where we’re making decisions as to what you know, how do we act on this evidence? What gets more weight? What, what do we choose to? You know, what do we judge is good quality or inferior quality? All those all those points of decision making along the way, I think are all ultimately a value based or a subjective choice that we’re making as objectively as possible. But there’s always scope to think, Oh, there’s another way of doing this. So I think the advantage of having diversity of thinking is that it presses for a more robust process. If anyone’s doubtful, then I would, I would say, well, think about the topics that you study, or the the areas of interest that you have, it’s probably been influenced by something throughout your life. So it’s about being shaped by your life experience, which isn’t specifically about gender. It’s just about, you know, those gender, we have gender patterns in our life experiences. And so ultimately, you know, how we operate is a subjective dynamic, because it’s, it’s a function of our view of the world and the bundle of experiences that we carry around with us.


Gene Tunny  47:00

Okay, that was Leonora Risse from RMIT. Tim, what did you think of what Leonora had to say?


Tim Hughes  47:06

I thought it was terrific. It’s right up my street. First of all, Gene, I want to pull you up. You said that Leonora was a former Queenslander and I don’t think there’s such a thing as a former Queenslander…


Gene Tunny  47:18

Aah very good point! That’s a good point yeah exactly. I mean, she’s not living in Queensland anymore, but she went to University of Queensland,

Tim Hughes  47:22

you know what I’m saying?

Gene Tunny  47:24

You’re right. That was poor form on my part.


Tim Hughes  47:28

Ok sorry I just had to point that one out. This was great. And, again, yeah, so diversity of thinking leads to developing robust processes. And it’s so good. There’s so much in there, and it fits in, it dovetails in with so many of the other clips that we’ve just talked about. And it makes sense, you know, the thing that I love about this stuff for me anyway is, like it completely makes sense that accepting of diversity, that necessity for diversity, it’s better. It shows how important it is to stand up for what you think’s right, and to explain why. So that thing of dissent, to push back against groupthink, and all the banal commentary that might come through accepted norms that aren’t good enough, all these kinds of things. And I had to say she didn’t actually mention the quote by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and I checked it out. And I’m going to read it out here because I thought it was so good. So Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “dissents speak to a future age, it’s not simply to say, my colleagues are wrong, and I would do it this way. But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually, over time, their views become the dominant view. So that’s the dissenters hope that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow.” And that’s the thing you know, it needs people to stand up, it needs people to speak their mind, it’s important to listen to hear and you know, not everything is going to be good, not everything is going to make it but you know, by, again, not going with our first what was it? Count? What was that one?


Gene Tunny  49:08

we want to be cognitively reflective…


Tim Hughes  49:11

That’s the one Gene! That’s the one, we want to be cognitively reflective, so not just go with our first opinion, our knee jerk reaction, but to let it settle, give it more thought. And to be okay, listening from places that you wouldn’t normally listen to, I think is a big part of that is so if you find you vote for the red team, listen to what the blue team has to say, in the best possible way and vice versa. And from different news channels, different areas, different people, let it sink in, because it’s quite possible that you can hear something that will land from anywhere. And it doesn’t mean you will agree with everything from that place or person but there’ll be parts of it that maybe should be heard.


Gene Tunny  49:50

Yeah, I think that’s a really good point. Tim, try to genuinely see where the other person’s coming from what their their point of view is. That’s the advice Dale Carnegie, I think it’s it’s been well tested through history that that’s, that’s a good thing to do. So absolutely.


Tim Hughes  50:08

And another thing is to consider, you know, what part you might be playing in groupthink? You know, like, because we’re all influenced by this stuff, whether we’re conscious of it or not. And you could find yourself following or repeating stuff that is just within the group of people you’re with, or political preference, or whatever it is. So be mindful of what you repeat, you know, just blindly I guess that’s, that’s one of the things I get from that.


Gene Tunny  50:32

Yeah. So I mean, I would say that there was a lot of that during the pandemic. So, yeah…


Tim Hughes  50:38

Which is good. So on reflection, this is where, with those, especially when things are heightened in the moment, you know, I guess is how this works. On reflection, we can look back and maybe do a better dissection, you know, with the benefit of hindsight and all of that. But so for instance, with the pandemic as an example, well, the chances are that something like that could well happen again, there’s no reason why it couldn’t happen tomorrow, you know, so, what would we do then? You know, with that benefit of having gone through that, and what would be a better decisions or better decision to make?


Gene Tunny  51:08

Yeah. Okay, Tim, well, I think we’ve got time for one more clip, in this session, I’ve still got the four or five other clips to play, but I might save them for a bonus episode, or for another episode, if we ever catch up. We’ll just play one more clip that’s on this whole theme of critical thinking and, and being cognitively reflective. And it’s from Professor Deb Brown from University of Queensland, who’s in the she’s a philosopher, isn’t she in the philosophy department? And that was someone who, John Atkins, so your friend John Atkins put us on to because she’s been running a project on critical thinking, and was it in the media, evaluating media? Critically, she talks about her Critical Thinking project, yes…


Tim Hughes  51:57

That’s right, with schools, I believe. And yeah, yeah, it was, it looked really good.


Gene Tunny  52:01

So she’s a Professor in the School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry at the University of Queensland, and we spoke to her early last year. So I’ll play this clip from Professor Deb Brown, Episode 123.


Deb Brown  52:20

And, you know, what we do fundamentally is distinguish between critical thinking, which entails being able to evaluate the quality of one’s own thinking. And so it’s essentially metacognitive. It’s, you know, it’s about, you know, What reasons do I have to believe that, you know, does this evidence stack up, you know, what’s the what’s the contradicting evidence, you know, sort of being disposed to look for not just evidence or reasons that support what you already believe, but actually looking for disconfirming evidence, right, you know, doing doing due diligence in the foundations for what one believes. And we distinguish that from other forms of thinking that that don’t concern that kind of the kind of quality of the foundations for one’s beliefs. So these might be things like, you know, free association, or associative thinking. And that’s very common. And often people mistake that for critical thinking. So, associative thinking is where you’re essentially looking, you know, you’re selecting for information that supports what you already believe. And what you find, then naturally coheres with what you believe, so we all sort of move around the world with these mental models, and the associative thinker, will be looking for things that fit with their mental model. And in you know, in science and in, you know, in other disciplines, this is, this often is connected with what’s called the confirmation bias, right? So that sort of, you know, preferencing, confirming evidence over disconfirming evidence and so on. And it also passes, it also, critical thing is also distinguished from what we call careful thinking, which is where somebody might be, you know, applying rules or procedures, think about, you know, a student in the class, you know, applying their procedural knowledge of mathematics, let’s say to, you know, to derive an answer or value on the basis of the arguments they have, you know, and that careful thinking, people often think they’re being critical thinking when they’re doing that as well. But what’s distinctive of critical thinking, is that critical attitude that one’s, one takes to one’s own reasons, and also to the principles or methods one’s relying on in drawing inferences on the basis of what one understands. So critical reasoning is very much connected up with what Descartes would have called the method of doubt right? Subjecting what one believes, you know, to doubt and, you know, in order to establish a better foundation for, for one’s belief and really being careful about the foundations for one’s belief.


Gene Tunny  55:08

Okay, that was Professor Deb Brown from the University of Queensland, Tim, I thought that was a great clip, I love the idea of thinking about how you’re thinking or metacognition, she really nailed what critical thinking is, and it’s not what you might think it is necessarily. I mean, you might think you’re doing critical thinking, but if you’re just applying a method that you’ve always applied or an algorithm, that’s not necessarily critical thinking, you’ve got to think about, okay, why am I doing that? Is that the right paradigm, the right framework? Is that does that really make sense? What are the implicit assumptions, I think that’s good for economists to do because when we analyse problems, we often go into analysing problems with a specific model in mind.


Tim Hughes  55:53

Again, this was such a good one with, with Deb, and everything she talked about, I found fascinating, because that whole area of like, for instance, to have critical thinking project, delivered in schools makes so much sense. Everybody could benefit from this, but the sooner the better, you know, like, you know, to get these things in as part of your DNA as part of your thought processes. And I think that’s a big part I get from a lot of the guys we’ve just listened to, it’s about the process, you know, what’s your process in, you know, discerning whether something is true or not, or what a good direction is to go in, and what’s a good process. And that’s what these guys talk about. Well, here’s a process that you can use, that’s tried and tested. It can be improved upon no doubt. But it’s, here’s something to go by, because there’s so much bad dialogue in the public forum, where it’s just people shouting at each other or opposing views where, quite realistically, they could probably agree on something that the other person is doing, but because of the party lines, they they have to be opposing and this is quite tedious, you know, to sort of watch, and it’s certainly not a way to come to a good decision. There are better ways out there. And we can employ these individually. And again, like within, you know, for yourself, within families within businesses, you know, with colleagues, here are good processes that are worthwhile going with because they’re better for us as humans, and the better, you come to better outcomes.


Gene Tunny  57:20

Yeah, exactly. Okay, Tim, we might have to wrap up. I’m gonna put links to all of the episodes that all of these clips are from in the show notes. I’ve still got a handful of clips left, but I think we’ll leave that for a bonus episode. There are some others on some other great conversations, but so many great conversations over the last couple of years. aah Tim okay. Yeah, Tim, you did want me to play one clip.


Tim Hughes  57:50

Now you chose this clip, you chose this clip…


Gene Tunny  57:53

I chose this clip that’s right, it’s a good one to finish up on, a good one for your ego so…


Tim Hughes  57:59

No, no, no you chose you chose the clip, it wasn’t about that. It’s about what is said not…


Gene Tunny  58:05

So this is our conversation with Andrew May the Australian Performance Coach, the coach to CEOs on the importance of fitness and business and when, it was funny when he because he hadn’t seen you in years had he Tim? No. And so I mentioned to Andrew about his book Match Fit. And then Andrew makes an observation about speaking of being match fit. So and we’ll just I’ll just play this clip.

How do you go from being a performance coach of the Australian cricket team? If I’m getting that right to coaching CEOs? Can you tell us a bit about that story, please, Andrew?


Andrew May  58:43

Yeah absolutely but before I do, if you want to know about being match fit, look at the guy sitting on your left. I first met Tim 20 years ago, he still looks the same, full head of hair, I’m very envious, so it’s great to reconnect with Tim.


Tim Hughes  58:55

Smoke and mirrors.


Andrew May  58:57

Ok so how did I end up coaching executives and doing mental skills for elite athletes around the world? There was no definitive plan Gene, and a lot of your listeners are going, “What do you mean you didn’t have a 20 year plan?” No. I was a good athlete, not great. I mean I won multiple state championships but never won at the national level, had a scholarship at the IIS in Tasmania. And we moved down to Hobart, which was wonderful in my early 20s. And I just finished studying exercise science. I had a physiology base and then went to the Institute of Sport. And it was a great learning in that high pressure environment. And when I look back, I got to the level I believed I could get to and I believe coaches should coach what they’re good at or what they’ve stuffed up and if you can combine the two you’ve got a really interesting mix. I left talent on the track literally, that any athlete any executive I work with, my real fuel is to help them fulfil their potential. So back to in Hobart, as a runner in Australia you don’t get paid a lot of money. Unless you’re a Craig Mottram or perhaps a Sally Pearson, so I had to supplement my income back then. It’s not politically correct, but I used to walk fat blokes. It’s now called personal training. So the clients I had, that’s Timmy when I met you, when I moved back to Sydney, after I finished down in Tasmania. And Gene a lot of the clients, I were training, they would lose 10 or 15 kilos. And then they’d say, Do you realise I’m not as cranky with my wife or my husband on the weekend, and the kids are not saying I’m an A hole, and I’m actually conscious at their school sport. And I’m not just thinking about what’s going on here. And I’m making better decisions, and I’m more creative. And we’ve opened up this other offshoot in Asia, what have you done to me? And I said I don’t know, just keep walking, don’t drink as much alcohol and keep swimming in the ocean. So I then really started to look into oooh, there’s a link between well-being, physical and psychological well-being and executive performance that was 20 plus years ago.


Gene Tunny  1:01:01

Okay, so wise words from Andrew May there, Tim.


Tim Hughes  1:01:05

Oh, yeah. And, and so just want to reiterate, he was very kind with his comment about me at the beginning. And that’s not the reason that I wanted you to play it. It was very kind, but I just wanted to, because this is the space I’ve been working in myself for the last 17 years and so it’s close to my heart. I’ve known Maysie for many years, even though we’ve been out of touch for quite a few. So it was really good to reconnect. But I just wanted to point out like, I mean, this is one of the areas I think of improvement that we all have at our disposal, which is often overlooked, you know, and that goes back to the pandemic, and all these kinds of things, you know, what can we do next time? Well, next time, the first thing we can do is to get healthier. Now, the healthier the population is, the less devastating anything, any kind of pandemic will be. So that’s like, that’s the first thing I would say. But the link between physical and psychological well-being and executive performance that Andrew was talking about, it’s so true, like we perform better all of us, you don’t have to be an executive or CEO. We’re better when we eat better, and when we move better, and it just makes so much sense. And as far as resilience goes, like with Andrew’s story himself. So he, by his own admission, was a good athlete, but didn’t reach the heights that he he hoped to. But in doing that, like he was able to become a world class coach with what he’s done since then. So he’s, he used that, which some may see that as a failure, ah you didn’t get what you set out to do, you failed. Not at all, like he was able to, it’s a very stoic sort of approach or sort of road he’s taken to say, Okay, well, that didn’t work. Let’s see, why it didn’t work? Or how could it, how could I help that work for someone else, which is what he’s done. And so the research is done on physical and psychological well being helps him, or has put him where he is now as this world class coach. And so for all those reasons, I wanted that to be included. Because I just see that as such a good thing for us all to learn from like we could all the, things he talks about, obviously, there’s there’s detail in there that we don’t have time to go into. But it comes back to the simple things of like, if you can eat well move well sleep well and connect with others, you’re going to tick a lot of boxes that as humans, when we’re going back to one of the earlier conversations about the economy, and in our equitable distribution, all these kinds of things well, just being healthier is, is one of the easiest and at reach, things that we can do. And it’s often overlooked, because we’ve got shiny things, material things that are further away. And these things I think, help us become better humans. And so along with that, the thought processes as well. It’s all part of how we can be better. You know at being, being human.


Gene Tunny  1:03:49

Yeah, just responding to that Tim, the point you make about connection is really an important point. And this is one of the things I really love about podcasting right? And it’s the ability to connect, I mean, like just us having a conversation helps us connect, right? I mean, I’m learning your perspectives. The guests we have on, people I’d never would have connected with otherwise, someone like Andrew May for instance. And you know, being able to get you know, really eminent economists such as David Hendry or Brad DeLong on the show that’s just amazing and then I’ve got listeners who’ll reach out to me with you know what they think and then you know, some of them I’ll, I’ll have on the show even so it’s just amazing for that connection. So that’s one thing I’d say that’s one reason I’m really glad I started podcasting. So that’s connection. The other point I’d make is that yep, since yeah listening to Maysie and also other stuff I’ve been reading, I read his book Match Fit. I read that other great book by Kelly Starrer, Built To Move, Kelly Starrett. Yeah, that’s right, that’s great. And, and since then, I’ve been trying to not just get out of like going to the gym or going for a walk or, or doing some exercise. It’s so easy to go. I’ve just got so much on. I’ve got so many projects on, I can’t find the time. But the attitude you’ve got to have and I think I got this from Laura Vanderkam who in her book, Tranquillity by Tuesday, I think it was, I think it was from her. If it’s not, whatever mentioned is, her book’s worth reading, is a great book regarding how you manage your time. But the attitude you’ve got to have is that working out or exercising, it doesn’t take time it gives you time. I think that’s so true. Because you’re so much more productive, like maybe you lose an hour or an hour and a half even. But when you go back to work, when you go back to the office, you’re really focused, because you could just have an hour a couple hours at work. Like imagine if you don’t take that time, your last few hours at work, you could just be unproductive. You could be demotivated, you could just be checking out what’s happening on on the news? What’s, you know, what’s on YouTube? You know, it could be? It could be, you could just be distracted?


Tim Hughes  1:06:01

Absolutely. And there’s so much good information out there. The big one is prioritising you know, in your diary in your day, to make sure you have time to do this, because most people would say they don’t have time. Well you do, it’s just not a priority, and it needs to be a priority. Or if it is a priority, you’d be better off for it.


Gene Tunny  1:06:19

Yeah. And I mean, I guess maybe it’s easier for me, because I do work for myself. But I guess if you if you’re an employee, then I guess Yeah, go on your lunchtime, or, you know, maybe have a chat with your manager or your boss and say, This really helps me out get makes me more productive. And I’ll stay a bit longer than than I would otherwise. I mean, there are sort of, you know, I think there are ways you can find that time to, to train.


Tim Hughes  1:06:44

Well people like Andrew May are at the leading edge of how this might work in with, with companies. In fact, we’ve got a round two that we have to do with Andrew, we spoke about executive performance for CEOs. Andrew doesn’t know about it yet. But I’m going to email him this week to talk about the impact, of course, on the workforce, you know, which is like everybody else, but it’s a fascinating area, because, you know, quite often, especially with these podcasts, and first of all Gene, congratulations on 200. It’s a huge achievement.

Gene Tunny  1:07:00

Thanks, Tim. Yeah,

Tim Hughes  1:07:02

and you’ve introduced me to guests and areas that I wouldn’t even thought about. And even though you know, like, you said I represent the guy on the street, which is basically, that’s that was an example of we saw that, you saw the value in that diversity, for instance, because as an economist, sometimes you would see things purely through an economists eyes. And so you told me, you you found value in some of the things that I would come up with, I mean, I know, I’ve probably said some crazy stuff. But you saw value in some of the things I saw from a different perspective. So that diversity, just between the two of us was valuable. Yeah, so I appreciate everyone that has been a guest on the show, especially ones I’ve spoken on, because it’s been great, you know, I’ve been opened up to all these different things. And a lot of the subjects or what you would say are outside our control or in the realms of things that are outside our control, which then brings it back to the health perspective of like, well, that’s really very much in people’s control. So it’s something that you can have an impact on.


Gene Tunny  1:08:17

Yeah to a large extent. I mean, obviously, you can have bad luck in your life. For Yeah, for the majority. Absolutely. Okay, Tim Hughes. Thanks so much for joining me on episode 200. It’s been a blast. And I’ll put links to all of the episodes that these clips are from in the show notes. So if you’re listening in the audience and you want to, you’re interested in checking them out, then you can go, go listen, so yeah, thanks for joining us, Tim. Thanks for for being here. It’s been terrific.


Tim Hughes  1:08:43

Yeah no, thank you, Gene. And I want to extend the thanks again to all the guests that have been on the show and to the listeners and for your feedback. It’s been great, and looking forward to next 200


Gene Tunny  1:08:53

Terrific thanks Tim. Righto, thanks for listening to this episode of Economics Explored. If you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please get in touch. I’d love to hear from you. You can send me an email via contact@economicsexplored.com Or a voicemail via SpeakPipe. You can find the link in the show notes. If you’ve enjoyed the show, I’d be grateful if you could tell anyone you think would be interested about it. Word of mouth is one of the main ways that people learn about the show. Finally, if your podcasting app lets you then please write a review and leave a rating. Thanks for listening. I hope you can join me again next week.


1:09:43

Thank you for listening. We hope you enjoyed the episode. For more content like this or to begin your own podcasting journey. Head on over to obsidian-productions.com

Credits

Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show’s sponsor, Gene’s consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com. Economics Explored is available via Apple PodcastsGoogle Podcast, and other podcasting platforms.