Not really so bad. When you look at the figures for the total number of hours worked in the employment figures released yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statistics you see the picture was not nearly as gloomy as the commentators this morning suggest.

While the headline figure showed  a fall of 22,100 people employed and the aggregate number of hours worked during April fell by 14.7 million hours to 1,601.6 million hours, the statistician’s trend figures still pointed towards growth.

And the quarterly monthly hours worked figures indicate that the economy is getting well and truly back on the upward path.

Better than twitters. One of the great skills of successful politicians is their ability to avoid answering questions they don’t want to answer while pretending that they are. So is there a solution to stop these artful political dodgers? Well Harvard academics Todd Rogers and Michael I. Norton think they have found one.

In a study published in the online Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (subscribers only except for the abstract) they found that people typically judge a speaker with the goal of forming an opinion of the speaker. Limited attention capacity is another reason people fall for dodges, said the authors, citing a previous study in which people counting basketball passes failed to notice a man in a gorilla suit walking through the game.

Dodge detection greatly increased when listeners were directed to pay close attention to the relevance of speakers’ answers with regard to the questions, or if the text of the correct question was visible to the listeners as the speaker responded. The ability to recognize a dodge more than doubled, from 39 percent without the text to 88 percent with the text.

“Given concerns that voters are uninformed or misinformed and the many calls for increased education of voters — from politicians and pundits alike — these results suggest that very simple interventions can dramatically help voters focus on the substance of politicians’ answers rather than their personal style,” said Rogers and Norton.

The producers of the ABC’s Q&A: please take note.

The researchers conducted four different experiments with four separate groups of people totaling 1,139 men and women averaging 44 years old. In three of the studies, participants watched a video of a mock political debate and then responded to an online survey. In the fourth study, participants listened to excerpts of a recording of a mock political debate and then responded to questions.

The study results indicated that people are frequently unable to remember an initial question if a speaker answers a similar question. Moreover, listeners rated speakers who answered a similar question just as positively as those who answered the correct question. Listeners had the most negative reactions if speakers answered blatantly different questions or if they fumbled their words even while answering the correct question.

But dodges aren’t always bad, the authors noted, “such as when someone asks coworkers for their opinion on a new outfit.” They pointed out that while posting the text of questions can be done for televised debates, it’s not practical to carry around a poster of your questions when going about everyday life. And dodge detecting can be detrimental if people are engaging in creative, wide-ranging conversations.

“Still, our results suggest that in many cases, dodges cause sought-after and relevant information to go unspoken, with little awareness and few consequences,” the authors said.

Don’t frighten the horses but … The International Monetary Fund is not in the business of creating panic among international investors and thus chooses its words carefully when making public statements on financial conditions.

Which perhaps means that the European component of the global financial crisis is still far from over. Tucked away in the IMF’s just released report on the Regional Economic Outlook for Europe are some scarcely veiled criticism of actions taken so far as the emphasis added in the following extracts show:

Dealing decisively with the financial tensions in the euro area requires comprehensive and bold policy action. The stakes are high. Unrelenting reform efforts at the national level of the crisis afflicted countries need to be the first line of defense. Restoring fiscal health, squarely addressing weak banks, and implementing structural reforms to restore competitiveness are key. Further strengthening the European Union-wide crisis management framework is critical to securing a successful overall outcome. The European Union (EU) decisions of this March are certainly welcome, but challenges now lie in their implementation.

Restoring confidence in the euro area’s banking system is a prerequisite to turning the page on the crisis. The upcoming round of strong, broad, and transparent stress tests provides an opportunity to address remaining vulnerabilities. But to be effective, the stress tests need to be followed by credible restructuring and recapitalization programs.

Efforts to strengthen the banking systems in vulnerable countries will need to accelerate, and policies to promote deeper integration of the EU financial system — including cross-border merger and acquisitions — should be part of the solution too, buttressed by further progress in strengthening pan-European institutions and governance. In emerging Europe, the main concern is mounting nonperforming loans, while capitalization appears comfortable for now. A second wave of bank consolidation and the prospective introduction of Basel III offer opportunities to strengthen the sector.

Fiscal consolidation and bank balance sheet repair are critical to defusing downside risks. Public debt sustainability is vital to an enduring solution for the financial tensions in the euro area and to breaking negative feedback loops between sovereign and banking sector instability. Countries under market pressure have appropriately front-loaded their fiscal adjustments, which they now must see through.

Other countries can afford to phase in fiscal consolidation more gradually, but a coherent and credible consolidation strategy embedded in a medium-term framework is still necessary for rebuilding fiscal buffers and quelling ever-rising public debt ratios. In emerging Europe, reducing fiscal vulnerabilities is equally important. Key fiscal indicators have deteriorated more than in other emerging economies and now often exceed prudent thresholds. Moreover, where inflation is becoming a concern, consolidation is also called for from a demand-management perspective.

…

Looking at the crises in the euro area periphery, and in emerging Europe, more broadly in the aftermath of the Lehman Brothers collapse reveals common patterns and suggests a number of policy lessons. Financial integration in the wake of euro adoption contributed to strong cross-border capital inflows into government debt, interbank markets, and the nontradable sector. Government bond yields quickly converged across the euro area, banks’ cross-border exposures built up, and the nontradable sector boomed.

Policymakers failed to confront asset price bubbles forcefully in the relatively protected nontradable sector, further boosting its perceived profitability. After many years of ever-higher current account deficits and eroding competitiveness, financing abruptly dried up, plunging the economies into deep recessions. Large adjustment needs, high indebtedness, and negative feedback loops between banking and sovereign instability make for a protracted recovery.

Yet, financial integration does not lead inexorably to such boom and bust cycles and, in fact, can contribute to income convergence. The internationalization of banking was not adequately matched by regulatory, supervisory, and banking reforms. National authorities retained ultimate responsibility, including for any public rescues. Moreover, financial markets failed to reflect mounting vulnerabilities in risk premiums until it was too late for a soft landing.

Stepping back from financial integration would be wrong. Instead, integration should be completed and adequate supportive policies should be put in place. Obstacles to cross-border equity investments and mergers and acquisitions should be removed so that debt inflows are no longer favored. Competition in the nontradable sector should be sharpened and policies should swiftly address any future asset price bubbles to avoid luring investment into relatively unproductive uses. Banking supervision, regulation, and resolution need to be elevated to the level at which banks operate in a financially integrated region.

Overcoming the crises in Europe ultimately requires restoring productivity growth in the afflicted countries — a task that goes well beyond the changes in European governance frameworks and the completion of financial integration. Labor productivity growth fell short in these countries over the past decade, despite ample access to financing from abroad. Fostering the return to a vibrant tradable sector is a multifaceted undertaking, but first results are already in hand in the Baltic countries and in Bulgaria, as well as in Ireland and Spain, where export growth is picking up sharply and competitiveness indicators are improving.

The American way. Oil companies in the United States are reporting record profits but some companies are never satisfied. Here is how a Houston based company, which incidentally has a major interest in Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited, reacted to a suggestion from Congressmen that perhaps an exploration taxation subsidy was no longer justified:

Some of the Congressional advocates of the tax change did not take kindly to being described as “Un-American” and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), during a Senate committee appearance by ConocoPhillipps CEO Jim Mulva, asked for an apology but the ConocoPhillips CEO refused to give one, claiming “nothing was intended personally” by his press release.

Schumer then pressed the other oil CEOs to state their views:

SCHUMER: I want to ask you a specific question, do you think anyone who advocates cutting these subsidies is un-American? Yes or no, sir. That one we deserve a yes or no answer on, it was your release that said “un-American.” Yes or no?
MULVA: Senator, maybe you can hear me out on this because it’s a very important question.
SCHUMER: Do you apologize for it?
MULVA: Make no mistake, were these proposals enacted…they would place U.S. oil companies like our company…
SCHUMER: Sir, I have limited time. I know your view. Do you consider it American to have another view? Yes or no?
MULVA: Senator, I believe policies under consideration are going to have a very adverse impact with respect to energy policy.
SCHUMER: There are many people who disagree with that. … Do any of you others consider it un-American to be against the subsidiy that you’re for? If you do, raise your hand?

[No one raises their hand.]

SCHUMER: Alright, thank you I appreciate the other four of you not labeling those who are different from you un-American.