Smoking levels continue to plummet

Wed, 19 Dec 2018  |  

This article first appeared on the Yahoo Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/smoking-levels-continue-plummet-210432040.html 

----------------------------------------------- 

Smoking levels continue to plummet

Some good news on health – Australians are smoking less with the amount of tobacco consumed dropping to a record low in the September quarter 2018, and this includes data back to 1959 when Australia’s population was about 60 per cent below the level of today.

The peak consumption of tobacco came in the mid-1970s. Since then, there has been an unrelenting fall, with the timing of the downturn broadly coincided with the increasing prominence given to the link between smoking and early death and a range of government regulations aimed at reducing smoking rates.

Most recently, the introduction of plain packaging laws, together with hefty increases in excises – taxes in other words – has continued to drive the consumption of tobacco lower. The decline in the volume of tobacco consumed in Australia has crashed a staggering 24.4 per cent since the plain packaging laws were introduced at the end of 2012. This is despite population growth of around 8.5 per cent over that time.

Factors other than the introduction of plain packaging laws were also driving smoking levels lower – as noted, the sharp rise in excise taxes, many years of health awareness, tobacco advertising bans, restricting smoking in public places and even the fact many smokers have died and therefore are not buying tobacco products are all driving smoking to record lows.

Many of these changes are government regulations, taken against the wishes of the tobacco companies and tobacco retailers and reflect a government commitment to improve the health of the population. Since 1975, Australia’s population has roughly doubled, yet the volume of tobacco consumed has plummeted by more than 65 per cent.

All of this goes to show that well crafted government regulation can achieve desired outcomes.

Let’s think of a few other issues where government regulation might work.

Obesity could easily be reduced if there was a tax on sugar, a massive awareness campaign highlighting healthy lifestyle choices, restrictions in junk food advertising and even plain packaging on food products that make people fatter. This mix of policies would work.

In a different area, the number of road death have been reduced over the past few decades with drink and drug driving laws, speed cameras, greater enforcement of speed limits, seat belts, higher fines and awareness campaigns such as stop, revive, survive all impacting.

Then there is climate change.

A price on carbon would see carbon emissions fall, and government funding of renewables would accelerate the path to lower carbon emissions as wind and solar accounted for an increased share of electricity output. It is only political will or the lack thereof that is keeping Australia’s per capita carbon output among the highest in the world. Sometimes, the general population is annoyed at the level of government intervention in the economy and their day to day lives. Extra costs, red tape and compliance issues are indeed annoying when the government implements policy wide-reaching regulatory changes.

But sometimes the government gets the policy setting right.

The strategy to reduce and hopefully eliminate smoking is one of those times. There should be consideration to using a similar approach to target other areas which will improve living standards.

comments powered by Disqus

THE LATEST FROM THE KOUK

The RBA admits it stuffed things up – sort of

Mon, 22 Jul 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/did-the-rb-as-monetary-policy-put-our-economy-at-risk-033940907.html

---------------------------------------------

The RBA admits it stuffed things up – sort of

The Reserve Bank of Australia needs to be congratulated for publishing research which implicitly confirms that it made a mistake when setting monetary policy in the period mid-2017 to early 2019.

Not that the research explicitly says that, but the RBA Discussion Paper, Cost-benefit Analysis of Leaning Against the Wind, written by Trent Saunders and Peter Tulip, makes the powerful conclusion that by keeping monetary policy tighter in order to “lean against” the risk of a financial crisis, there was a cost to the economy that is three to eight times larger than the benefit of minimising the risk of such a crisis eventuating.

The costs to the economy includes lower GDP growth and higher unemployment, that lasts for at least for several years.

A few terms first.

According to the Saunders/Tulip research, “leaning against the wind”, a term widely used in central banking, is “the policy of setting interest rates higher than a narrow interpretation of a central bank’s macroeconomic objectives would warrant due to concerns about financial instability”. In the RBA’s case, the “narrow interpretation” of the RBA’s objectives are the 2 to 3 per cent inflation target and full employment.

In the context of the period since 2017 and despite the RBA consistently undershooting its inflation target and with labour underutilisation significantly above the level consistent with full employment, the RBA steadfastly refused to ease monetary policy (cut official interest rates) because it considered higher interest rate settings were appropriate to “lean against” house price growth and elevated levels of household debt.

The weak economy is turning higher

Mon, 15 Jul 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo Finance web site at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/just-how-weak-australia-strong-economy-213520159.html 

----------------------------------------------

The weak economy is turning higher

In the space of a couple of months, the rhetoric on the economy has gone from strong to weak.

Curiously, both assessments are wrong.

The economy was actually weak during the first half of 2019 and, if the leading indicators are correct, late 2019 and 2020 should see a decent pick up in economic activity.

It is not clear what has caused this error of judgment and the about face from so many commentators and economists, including importantly the Reserve Bank. A level-headed, unbiased look at economic data confirms that in late 2018 and the first half of 2019, the economy was in trouble. There were three straight quarters of falling GDP per capita, house prices were diving at an alarming rate, there was a rise in unemployment, wages growth remained tepid and low inflation persisted.

These are not the dynamics of a “strong” economy.

Only now, in the rear view mirror look at the economy, are these poor indicators gaining favour, leading to generalised economic gloom.