If things are really grim, it helps to have an indefatigable nature, and there’s no doubt that RBA Deputy Governor Ric Battellino has that in spades—at least in the speeches he makes at public conferences. Were I being crucified, I’d like to have Ric up there with me, singing “Cheer up Brian!…”, to take my mind off the nails.
But were I still in the Garden of Gethsemane, and actually trying to avoid the Romans (and an extended Pilates session the next day), I think I’d want someone else on lookout duty.
Last month, in his Address to ITSA’s 7th National Bankruptcy Congress in Sydney, Battellino looked at the data on Australian house pricing, and saw no reason to expect them to fall all that much.
Curiously, he argued that the Australian market was actually ahead of the US—that we’d already peaked in 2003, three years before the US market hit the peak from which it is still precipitously falling:
“First, the cycle in the Australian housing market, rather than following the US market, is in fact at a more advanced stage; it is probably leading the US market by three years or so. The Australian housing market was at its hottest in 2003, whereas the US market peaked in 2006.”
Strange then that the ABS data put the index of Australian house prices at 101.5 at the end of 2003, versus 130.7 in June of this year. So … Australian house prices fell minus 27 percent from their peak? We indeed live in a Lucky Country, if house prices rise when the market cools.
In fact, the index did reached a mini-peak at the end of 2003, and fell 1.5 percent in 2004. But it then regained momentum, and rose another 30 percent above the tiny dip in 2004.
Battellino’s consideration of other data was not so obviously Orwellian—he noted the shortage of supply here versus an oversupply in the USA, and that is clearly the case.
But he also ignored other readily available data when presenting what he described as “an objective look at the state of household finances”.
How about the objective data, as recorded in the Demographia survey, that Australia’s median house price, at 6.3 times median income, is the most unaffordable in the OECD? Or the RBA’s own data that which shows that, relative to household disposable income, household debt in Australia is actually slightly larger than in the USA?
Clearly our economic managers are torn between not wanting to spook the market, and wanting to present objective guidance—so much so that debating whether economic projections reflect scientific foresight, or politically inspired spin, has become the contest du jour in Question Time.
In this, both sides of our House are missing the point. If Treasury and the RBA had got it right, we wouldn’t be in the Garden of Gethsemane in the first place—we’d be in the Garden of Eden instead
The US Congress’s Oversight Committee got closer to the mark, when it forced Greenspan into the admission that the economic philosophy he’d been following for the previous 40 years was wrong.
This philosophy led him to not merely ignore asset bubbles, but to renew Wall and Main Streets’ speculative manias after each bubble burst, by rekinding the growth of private debt until it hit the unsustainable levels that have precipitated this crisis.
At least Greenspan—though admittedly in retirement—had the gumption to admit fault. Our economic managers, caught in a crisis they didn’t see coming, are still using the same models that didn’t anticipate this mess, and still looking for the glimmers of brightness amidst the statistical gloom.
Days after Battellino’s speech, the ABS released its update to the house price index, which showed that prices had fallen 1.84 percent in the September quarter.






November 12th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
steve,
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008…sky-territory/
Merrill Lynch just released a report on country risks (data up to Oct 2008). I can’t find the original. But it ranks Australia as the No.1 most risky country!!
Debt related indicators were used a lot.
I wonder if you would be interested in commenting it or if anyone can find the original report. thanks
November 12th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I noticed you agreed with the RBA regarding a shortage of housing – I have been living in Hobart (and Australia) for 3 yrs and put off buying a house for that long anticipating a sharp drop in housing prices and I constantly hear these comments and reports about housing shortages – however I see and read very little about homeless people and I am not talking about “unemployed” homeless people.
In order to migrate to Australia I had to start from the bottom, as a blue collar worker due to my formal qualification and I am surrounded by middle aged blue collar landlords – (miss guided) employees earning about +$60 000.00 pa who think they own investment properties (and quite a few more than 1 ) – now I can understand those who bought the investment property more than 6 or 7 yrs ago might see some return but for the most they “own” the mortgage and nothing else .
Its not a shortage of housing – it’s miss guided hording of ( investment )housing which has created this illusion of a shortage. I think the difference between rent and the monthly mortgage would be much less if there was a real shortage – but its not ( at least in Hobart ) .
I would be interested to hear some comments
November 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Hi GeorgeK,
I didn’t so much agree as not disagree–at least the data seems to support their position, versus the nonsensical interpretation of housing price data.
It’s also categorically the case that spending on housing construction declined as a proportion of total housing finance from about 30% to under 10% over the last 2 decades.
As to whether there is a shortage–I tend to side with some bloggers here that the shortage of rental accommodation may well reflect “investors” keeping some properties empty to avoid the hassles of renting, when the main purpose behind their purchase was to sell to another “investor” at a later stage at a higher price.
When that collapses–and especially if the government would be brave enough to make negative gearing conditional on having rental receipts–then the shortage may well evaporate.
And a serious economic downturn will eliminate the undersupply issue completely.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Steve,
What do you make of the stats used at:
http://www.bubblepedia.net.au/
http://www.bubblepedia.net.au/tiki-index.php?page=OverbuildingByLocation
regarding growth in population, growth in dwellings and growth in unoccupied dwellings?
These stats would indicate oversupply rather than under supply. There seems to be so many conflicting messages from every angle – hard to tell what is noise.
By the way, nice post – some of the speeches from those in power lately are just plain ridiculous. This one in particular struck me as being more ridiculous than others.
November 12th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
How many of you saw the article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald by Michael West? “Deep in Foreign Debt”
I think Michael West may have been reading this site.
The article is based on a Meryll Lynch note that rated Australia the highest risk nation on the planet based on a set of criteria largely centred around private debt and foreign debt.
As Bob Prechter from Eilliot Wave says “There will be nowhere to hide”
November 12th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The “Housing Shortage” argument is deceptive and vague.
It may well be that Australia has a shortage of dwellings per capita compared to other nations, but I’m not aware of any hard data supporting this notion (it may well exist – if anyone knows please post). This is the popular interpretation and it is widely used to justify fantasy price levels. And we’ve all heard the laughable shortage of land per capita argument (they ain’t makin’ any more you know..).
The simple truth is that the only supply/demand dynamic with direct implications for pricing is the Number of Dwellings Available for Sale versus the Number of Buyers Willing to Pay Current Prices. Over the past 6+ months, the market has been flooded with properties for sale and the number of buyers willing to pay current prices has dropped precipitously. As a result the supply/demand situation is extremely bearish for property prices, as evidenced by recent declines.
I live (now rent) in an up-market Brisbane suburb and three houses on my street, including the one I’m renting, have gone up for sale in the last two months. There are NO BUYERS, not one single inspection to date. Housing shortage or not, there is certainly no lack of desperate sellers and over-priced properties.
November 12th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Steve, Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder, how is it that the government is not pulling banks into line?
lenders are still working hard to stuff as much debt down consumers necks as they can.
I wish I could scan this and post it here. My wife recieved an unsolcited offer from Citibank yesterday to increase a credit card limit.
Get this on top of the letter in bold type with a red highlight ” A brand new TV” – “A Brand New Home entertainment System”. Then below an offer to increase the current $4,500 card limit to – wait for it $11,000 pre approved Wow an extra $5,500 to spend, guess its almost xmas.
Thats a 122% increase in that debt facility with no increase in income – sound like a great deal – sound like responsible leanding practices – I don’t think so !
Craig
November 12th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Available rentals don’t seem to be high but on the other hand inhabitants per dwelling is low, and can easily change. There are a lot of ways the number per dwelling can increase and it only takes one or two per cent and the vacancy rate for rentals is up at 3 or 4%. In America people who lose their houses often end up with relatives.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Here are some numbers on projected housing shortage this coming year:
http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/housing/nras_prospectus.htm
A Snapshot of the Residential Property Market in Australia from the National Rental Affordability Scheme – Prospectus 2008: “Since 2004, demand for housing in Australia has outstripped supply. It is estimated that Australia currently has an annual housing supply deficit of up to 30,000 homes.”
This figure was recently updated by the HIA to a deficit of 45,000 homes:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/19/2340062.htm?section=business
Given the potential to be sitting on 10-30 percent negative equity in the next 12 months, few buyers are willing to plunge into property debt at the current prices. Add to that an extra 330,000 extra immigrants in the next year and we have a recipe for tent city in a suburb near you.
My recommendation: govt remove the advantage given investors such as negative gearing and interest only loans by phasing them out. That might even the playing field, encourage home buyers into the market and debt shy investors out of the market, and stimulate the building industry.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
One of my greatest concerns is that we definitely have an undersupply of affordable rental accommodation.
It is for this reason that I support the Government’s national rental affordability scheme. My only concern is that it is not sufficiently ambitious.
Instead of boosting the FHOG – a vain attempt to slow the fall in house prices – the Government should be implementing policy which ensures an increase in the supply of housing for the lower income Australians who have suffered (using the RBA’s own word) due to the house price bubble.
This would involve expediting and expanding the NRAS, and providing funds to the states to build more Government housing. (The Federal Government will need to provide the funds because the state budgets are being sunk due to their shortsighted over-reliance on property bubble related revenues.)
November 12th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Hello Steve
More very interesting observations, however I wonder if sentiment is the initiating cause of some of these drastic changes. Are the prices dependent on supply of houses or just supply of credit?
I note on your “Debt to GDP: The Long Term View” graphs,that previous problems occurred in 1892 with the debt at 105%, and in 1932 with the debt at 78%, and now it is at 165%. Why has it deteriorated so much to date with no earlier problems?
A curious observstion; if you differentiate the graph you find that at the two previous peaks, and now, the rate of debt increase was and is close to 8.5%/year.
Could it be that a totally intolerable situation arises at this debt increase rate? Or is it just another coincidence?
Many thanks for your efforts.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Steve, I’m really glad you posted this.
I questioned this the other day:
http://bubblepedia.net.au/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=629&topics_offset=4&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=7
In my view what Ric Battellino said was obviously not true. I’m amazed this didn’t get more coverage.
It’s worth noting that there was also a housing “shortage” in California in 2004.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/11/09/lessons-from-californias-housing-bubble/
I suspect the “shortage” of housing in Australia is similarly illusionary.
i.e. a combination of:
1) “false demand” – many people speculating to by “investment properties”
2) “false undersupply” – houses being kept empty (for speculation or renovation)
Additionally, as NME noted above, when things get tough people are more willing to share accommodation, further reducing demand.
I would also be interested to hear peoples opinion of the figures on bubblepedia, which seem to indicate we have actually been building at a faster rate than population growth.
> 1996 – 2006 = 13% population growth, 17% dwelling growth.
http://bubblepedia.net.au/tiki-index.php?page=HousingShortage
November 12th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
BrightSpark, the two previous crashes occurred due to crashes overseas which caused a shock to the Australian economy. Presumably anywhere within a range of economic parameters an external shock will cause a crash. Americas lower regulation will almost certainly cause their economy to fail from an internal shock before other economies and then the dominos around the world fall.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Alan – at a 30 000 unit deficit and the immigrant influx ( and I am one of them ) I would assume that there would be at least 60 000 people living on the streets in Australia – now I haven’t checked the census records but I do not believe it’s the norm for 10 to 12 people to be living in 1 dwelling in Australia and mass homelessness is not a problem here , well not by what I have seen around the world – I don’t have the answers but I do question those numbers and everyone of the ( blue collar ) landlords I speak to quote similar figures ( and one of the main reason for buying the 2nd and 3rd house ).
Just an observation on the immigrants , I took a 7 to 1 knock on the money I came across with ( exchange rate ) – I sold a 5 bed room – 25 sq house on a 1800m2 block – to even try buy something similar in Hobart is out of the question with little lot and one of the main reasons for waiting . The house I currently rent would cost me just more than double the rent I pay , even after putting down a $ 70 000 deposit . I think the vast major of immigrants would be in a similar situation to me – which would mean there would be a much higher demand for rental properties , I would assume and I think higher rents and the view that investment properties were / are good investments – but again from what I read , they not !
Just a comment on the lack of regulation in the USA and this belated cry for more – its not going to solve anything – highly qualified , intelligent people driven by greed find ways to work around these , they did it in the past and will do so in the future – swift justice , jail sentences without the options of fines + parole and the same enthusiasm we have for chasing down Bin Laden is what is needed .
November 12th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Steve, I’m really glad you posted this.
I questioned this the other day:
http://bubblepedia.net.au/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?comments_parentId=629&topics_offset=4&topics_sort_mode=lastPost_desc&forumId=7
In my view what Ric Battellino said was obviously not true. I’m amazed this didn’t get more coverage.
It’s worth noting that there was also a housing “shortage” in California in 2004.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/11/09/lessons-from-californias-housing-bubble/
I suspect the “shortage” of housing in Australia is similarly illusionary.
i.e. a combination of:
1) “false demand” – many people speculating to by “investment properties”
2) “false undersupply” – houses being kept empty (for speculation or renovation)
Additionally, as NME noted above, when things get tough people are more willing to share accommodation, further reducing demand.
I would also be interested to hear peoples opinion of the figures on bubblepedia, which seem to indicate we have actually been building at a faster rate than population growth.
> 1996 – 2006 = 13% population growth, 17% dwelling growth.
http://bubblepedia.net.au/tiki-index.php?page=HousingShortage
November 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
According to a search on debtdeflation.com, Steve hasn’t delved into negative gearing (unless I’m missing something)
People have often called for its removal. In Steve’s reply to GeorgeK (above), he offers an interesting tweak for it which I think would help.
Regarding that reply, I also think “investors” don’t help because developing value/dwellings into their land isn’t as important or risk free as simply raising rents and waiting.
But my question for anyone is (and I could wait for an on-topic blog or accept a link as an answer)… What is good and bad about negative gearing for the economy, and didn’t the government try removing it once.. what was the outcome of that?
November 12th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
There is no under-supply of housing. When people turn up at display homes thinking about buying and then leave without buying – where do they go ? They go ‘home’ ie. their current accommodation. When housing finance remains in a down trend for three quarters now, and homeless numbers remain static – there is not a supply problem. Similarly, short term visitor arrivals are trending down, while departures are trending up, and now outnumber arrivals (hint: they’re not all tourists). This further eases pressures on housing supply (if there was any pressure that is)
Rental accommodation is not helped by the intransigence of local councils, who nowadays don’t like to have alternative accommodation (eg.caravan parks, boarding houses, hostels, etc.) in their locale, as these are now seen as somehow degrading, or a place for undesirables. It also doesn’t help that many local councillors have more than a passing interest in real estate, and hence like to eliminate alternatives.
Ken,
Usually in a recession housing is the last to fall. This time, particularly in the US, housing was the leader. Not so clear cut in Oz due to the GFC and the consequent China syndrome, but I think housing was pretty much ready to fall all by itself. It has now been given a healthy nudge.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
When I read Battelino’s speech last week, I thought I must have somehow strayed onto some website to do with Real Estate / property spruiking. Is this the brand identification the RBA seeks these days ?
November 13th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Hi Steve,
I’m no economist at all, actually I’m concluding my PhD in a totally different field (i.e. biochemistry/molecular biology… prostate cancer research), but I have a quick question for you.
I saw you and Peter Schiff on Dateline and I was really impressed with both of your analyses. I’ve been following Peter Schiff for the last couple of months now and his line is basically 1) Collapse of the US dollar and 2) Hyperinflation for the US economy.
From reading some of your material, you appear to conclude that the US is facing a deflationary depression. Peter Schiff does believe that there will be deflation, at least initially, in real terms… but ultimately the policy of the Fed, with helicopter Ben in command, will lead to the uninhibited printing of money to cause hyperinflation.
So my question regards whether hyperinflation is a possibility if the Fed uncontrollably prints money to pay off both government and private debt? Also if the US dollar collapses, how would this alter your deflationary/inflationary outlook?
Regards,
Washington
November 13th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Hi Washington,
Peter’s analysis of money is typical of Austrian and neoclassical economists–that its production is external to the economy itself, and determined by the product of base money generation and a reserve multiplier.
This gives a very simple route to hyperinflation: ramp up base money production (“print notes”), drop the reserve ratio, hey presto the volume of money in the economy rises (roughly, credit money equals base money times the money multiplier), and with “too much money chasing too few goods”, you get rising prices.
I have no doubt that the US Fed will try that at some point–and Bernanke is on record as saying he believes that “the logic of the printing press” will save us from deflation.
But it’s wrong.
The model has the government driving the credit system; empirically, and also from a different theoretical viewpoint, the relationship is the other way around: government money responds with a lag to developments in the credit system.
I’ll detail this in detail in my next blog posting–I’ve been delaying this monster for a while, but it’s now unavoidable so (once my uni marking load is over) I’ll get down to writing the full explanation.
Anyway, pre-empting that explanation, I don’t believe that the Fed has the capacity to engineer hyperinflation. It could come from cost pressures–from a plunging US dollar and unavoidable price rises for imports–but that is likely to be countered by distress selling pressures at home.
Global warming and peak oil remain the only forces that make me doubt a deflationary outcome. Were they not in the mix, I would be 100% confident of a deflation coming our way. With them, I’m only about 75% confident.
November 13th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Yesterday I watched Dr Henry’s defence of the estimates in MYEFO. I have a great deal of respect for him in what must be an incredibly challenging position of walking the tightrope between technical credibility and political pressures.
I have some experience at it myself having worked for a short while in a contentious area of Federal Government policy in Canberra.
From that experience, let me explain where the journos let Dr Henry off the hook.
They probed in the right area but did not ask specific enough questions. They asked – “why did the Treasury choose to use market based estimates of cash rates” and about “the degree of political interference”. He easily sidestepped the real issue.
Most importantly, on political interference he said that his staff are “fearless” in PROVIDING ADVICE.
What needed to be asked is when was the Treasurer and/or his staff informed of the “Treasury’s decision” to – for the first time ever – use market-based forward estimates of the cash rate instead of the current cash rate. And what, if any, consultation took place between the Treasurer or his staff and the Treasury Department in reaching that historic decision.
You see, Dr Henry only spoke about giving advice. My experience was that politicians – through their senior advisers – can bring a great deal of pressure to bear on THEIR public servant employees to produce public documents in a way which suites their political desires, but does not gel with the technical opinion of the public servant (who, afterall, is the technical expert.)
I do not believe for a second that the Treasurer, most likely through his senior staff (so if the proverbial hit the fan, he could remain “clean” of controversy), did not have a great deal of input into the decision to make this historic change. In fact, I would think that it is most likely that it was his office that first raised this option. And I would be very surprised indeed if there were not Treasury Department employees very disappointed, for technical reasons, at this decision because it was based on political motivations.
When you work in a contentious area of Government policy, there is always pressure to balance political and technical issues. I will always remember my former boss, who sadly has passed away, saying “we are great at the science, now we need to get great at the politics”.
I think it is rare for somebody to be truly good at both. In fact, I told my boss that in my view the two were mutually exclusive. And I still find that to be true.
But some are better at maintaining perceptions than others. Dr Henry did a good job. Ric Battellino’s speech, on the other hand, gives the strong perception that he is someone who leans more to the political side than the technical because his arguments were very weak indeed (as Steve has shown above, and as I have argued in this paper – http://www.geocities.com/homes4aussies/h4a081104.pdf).
November 13th, 2008 at 9:23 am
To add to the deflation discussion.
When the herd decides they want to reduce debt, the herd does it. This is deflationary. At present there is a heightened presence of fear. This fear is causing the liquidation of assets and the reduction of debt. This process is intensifying because the run up in debt was so large.
As a result, the Fed is following the herd and has dropped interest rates to historically low levels. There is also the constant threat to “print money”. Whilst ever the herd is afraid they will reduce debt not expand it. So even if the Fed gave people cash. The herd would use the money to reduce debt. If debt levels were really low printing money would cause inflation.
At two levels of consciousness the herd is de-investing. It takes spending and investing (borrowing) to grow inflation. The opposite is happening.
Interesting how the NSW Government is “tightening their belts”. Instead of “pump priming”, they are trying to “live within their means”. I wait with baited breath to see when the US government realises that the herd wants them to “be responsible” and they tighten their fiscal stance.
The psychology of the world is changing very fast from bullishness to bearishness. Watch how the government policies change fast too.
The US Treasury is no longer going to buy toxic bonds (smart move) they are now going to invest in bank shares (dumb move). The markets will ultimately decide which banks are the fittest and should survive. And which are the weakest and should fail. To invest in bank shares will only delay this natural process and result in losses along the way.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Thanks Steve for the response… scary stuff to be sure, but I’d rather be informed and prepared than ignorant and surprised!
The level of private debt is something that I noticed that Peter didn’t take into account in his estimations of the economy. That while the government has a debt burden, say a basketball sized hole on one side of the ship, the private sector has the equivalent of 20 of the holes on the other side.
So if I’m understanding this correctly, all of the inflation created will be used to close the gaps and won’t even have the chance to increase consumer prices… rather, the effort to close the gaps will mean less spending and thus a collapse in consumer prices.
One thing regarding the price of oil though, is that in real terms (i.e. gold vs oil), the price of oil has remained remarkably stable… the fluctuations in the US dollar have caused the massive deviations in the price of oil. So it will be interesting to see what happens there.
Regards,
Washington
November 13th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Hi Steve,
Just wondering if there are any distinct differences between the US situation and the various incidents of hyperinflation globally? This URL cites 40 such events over history.
http://www.dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00107&cat_id=17
Also, do you have a view on how the global nature of the US dollar influences things?
Bright Spark, people like Bob Prechter (and I have regard for his work) mentioned above, argue the driving force is social mood, though he does considerable analysis of economic dynamics, and he, like a number of Austrian economists, also put a deflation argument. If it was a restriction in credit supply that would be sentiment based motivated and affected by debt stress and affects debt stress (ie capital return on investments not supporting debt with no further expansion of credit). However, I wonder too, seems to me sentiment is not independent of the experience of increasing debt and its failure. To put a structural view, the debt stress point broke somewhere, even if overseas, and could it be a bit like when the weightlifter’s arm snaps having put the weight up to say the 450kg lift (debt tolerance) with much craft. After that, the broken lifter was none too happy (screeched “Life’s a piece of …” most loud) and no one (bank) wanted to give them weights for a while and then only a light load to build up confidence with lots of reassurance and if lucky their career was not ruined. If this is the case, the way I see it, in the debt game there is a cascade of lifters supporting each other. The collapsing twin towers might be a tragic structural example. Though the catalyst could also have been if they had just kept putting more stories on top and it seems in the debt game there is little to stop social mood driving us to that point and once the stories start coming down what’s going to stop its collapse?
November 13th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Hi Steve!
I wouldn’t say this is a ‘typical’ Austrian view. There are other Austrians who also agree with you that deflation is the much more likely outcome e.g. Frank Shostak from Man Financial.
Following some Austrian debates, I know there are some who see price inflation as solely a function of money supply. This, in my opinion, is too simplistic. There are other Austrians who are more sophisticated than that e.g. Marc Faber.
I would add another point to Steve: Developments in credit system also responds to human psychology/social mood/whatever. The reason why I say that is because upon reading Mises and Rothbard’s work, they mentioned about “demand for money” (do not confuse that with demand for credit, which is a different thing). The demand for money is what I would call (in fluffy layperson terms) the psychological need for keeping ‘money’ in reserves for rainy days. That is, an increase in demand for ‘money’ implies a decrease in demand for goods/services.
Price inflation can only occur if there is both an increase in supply of ‘money’ along with a corresponding decrease in demand for ‘money’. Mises called that the crack-up boom. It is this demand for ‘money’ that I think manifests itself in what you call the “developments in the credit system.” This explanation can fit hand in glove with Steve’s model because it could be that this fluffy demand for ‘money’ is the primary driving force of money supply.
As David said,
From what I see, the social mood can be related to the fluffy demand for ‘money.’
Agree with Steve on that. Ben Bernanke will try as hard as he can. He can only succeed to the extent that the government is complicit. The fear is that, Ben Bernanke has A LOT of freaky, preposterous and unconventional ideas to kill deflation. I written an article, Bernankeism and hyper-inflation that summarise a summary of what Ben Bernanke and his accomplices dream of doing to fight a mighty war against inflation. They’ve written a lot of papers and made a lot of speeches on that topic. The question is, would they really do what their speeches/papers said they would do?
If they really go along that path (and that’s an extreme if), I fear that they will wreck the credit system, which in turn can wreck Steve’s model of credit/money creation.
Agree with you on that too. Some of the preposterous schemes that Ben Bernanke thought of are illegal. For them to succeed, they need the complicity of the government and Congress. With Obama in power, his socialist leanings and mandate of the American peopel has nudged that possibility up by another notch.
We shall see.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Not surprisingly Rob Prechters background is psychology though much of his analysis is structural. His or his sites discussion on the dynamics of deflation, that cites Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek can be found at:
http://www.elliottwave.com/deflation/
November 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Steve
I fully agree with your view on where the residential housing market is headed. I am amazed that it has remained at current levels for so long. Ric Battellino’s optimism is not only misplaced it is absurd in the face of current valuations, and collapsing commodity prices.
With respect to the US economy I wonder whether the economic slowdown there will be accompanied by deflation or hyperinflation. Noriel Roubini suggests that it is headed for super-deflation, (he is operating from a Keynseian paradign), whereas some industry observers suggest that the level of US government debt will need to be expanded by printing more money resulting in hyperinflation of the kind experienced by Brazil or Argentina in the eighties or even Germany in the 1920s.
I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the inflation/ deflation question for both the US and Australia.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
To GeorgeK and Stichy
GeorgeK, I also wonder where some of these figures come from. Judging by demand, there must be a shortage of inner city or conveniently placed rentals, but overall I don’t know.
As an immigrant, esp a recent one, you are certainly being ripped off. Inviting migrants here without providing the most basic of things, reasonable accommodation, is not on, and I wonder about govt policy makers in this regard. Are they awake?
As far as I can see there is a cosy conspiracy between govt, banks and the RE industry to keep inflation bubbling along.
Government achieves this via tax concessions to those who don’t need assistance (residential property investors who in 99% of cases already own a home) thus enabling them to go into more debt than would otherwise be possible if there were no concessions, Banks via their lax lending practices have flooded the economy with ‘their’ money so to say (results in the value labour, savings and superannuation decreasing proportionally) and the RE industry – self interested and self serving spruiking that know no bounds.
To understand how ridiculous the government tax concession fiasco is try:
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2008/03/tuesday-column-lets-incentivate.html
Novel Approach to Running a Business, Aim at a Loss (alternate title)
The whole housing unaffordability crisis is deliberate for the above reasons, and every attempt to do something about the situation is bound to fail unless the real underlying causes are tackled. Solution involves removing tax concessions for those who already ‘have’ (phase out concessions, negative gearing and interest only loans for a start), and enforcing responsible lending by banks. As for workers in the RE industry could look up the word ‘fact’ and try to use a few in their everyday life.
Stitchy, here is a good intro to negative gearing, the legislated rort that has all but destroyed the possibility of home ownership in Aus: http://www.prosper.org.au/2007/11/01/negative-gearing-incompetence-or-conspiracy/
Also useful for understanding why homes are unaffordable:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-great-australian-dream-at-the-mercy-of-our-own-habits/2008/03/17/1205602288094.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Invasion of the investors, driven by the tax breaks for negative gearing and capital gains.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/landlords-tax-bonanza/2008/03/18/1205602384109.html $3B tax subsidies to investors, some who do not pay any tax at all
http://www.prosper.org.au/2008/05/19/unprintable-remarks-on-the-budget-gavin-putland/
good insights on how to avoid solving the housing crisis
cheers
November 13th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
To GeorgeK and Stichy
GeorgeK, I also wonder where some of these figures come from. Judging by demand, there must be a shortage of inner city or conveniently placed rentals, but overall I don’t know.
As an immigrant, esp a recent one, you are certainly being ripped off. Inviting migrants here without providing the most basic of things, reasonable accommodation, is not on and I wonder about govt policy makers in this regard. Are they awake?
As far as I can see there is a cosy conspiracy between govt, banks and the RE industry to keep inflation bubbling along.
Government achieves this via tax concessions to those who don’t need assistance (residential property investors who in 99% of cases already own a home) enabling them to go into more debt than would otherwise be possible if there were no concessions, Banks via their lax lending practices have flooded the economy with ‘their’ money so to say (results in the value labour, savings and superannuation decreasing proportionally) and the RE industry – self interested and self serving spruiking that know no bounds.
To understand how ridiculous the government tax concession fiasco is try:
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2008/03/tuesday-column-lets-incentivate.html
Novel Approach to Running a Business, Aim at a Loss (alternate title)
The whole housing unaffordability crisis is deliberate for the above reasons, and every attempt to do something about the situation is bound to fail unless the real underlying causes are tackled.
Solution involves removing tax concessions for those who already ‘have’ (phase out concessions, negative gearing and interest only loans for a start), and enforcing responsible lending by banks via govt regulation. As for workers in the RE industry, they could look up the word ‘fact’ and try to use a few in their everyday life.
Stitchy, here is a good intro to negative gearing, the legislated rort that has all but destroyed the possibility of home ownership in Aus: http://www.prosper.org.au/2007/11/01/negative-gearing-incompetence-or-conspiracy/
Also useful for understanding why homes are unaffordable:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-great-australian-dream-at-the-mercy-of-our-own-habits/2008/03/17/1205602288094.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Invasion of the investors, driven by the tax breaks for negative gearing and capital gains
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/landlords-tax-bonanza/2008/03/18/1205602384109.html $3B tax subsidies to investors, some who do not pay any tax at all
http://www.prosper.org.au/2008/05/19/unprintable-remarks-on-the-budget-gavin-putland/
good insights on how to avoid solving the housing crisis
cheers
November 13th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Stitchy, here is a good intro to negative gearing, the legislated rort that has all but destroyed the possibility of home ownership in Aus:
http://www.prosper.org.au/2007/11/01/negative-gearing-incompetence-or-conspiracy/
Also useful for understanding why homes are unaffordable:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-great-australian-dream-at-the-mercy-of-our-own-habits/2008/03/17/1205602288094.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Invasion of the investors, driven by the tax breaks for negative gearing and capital gains.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/landlords-tax-bonanza/2008/03/18/1205602384109.html $3B tax subsidies to investors, some who do not pay any tax at all
http://www.prosper.org.au/2008/05/19/unprintable-remarks-on-the-budget-gavin-putland/
good insights on how to avoid solving the housing crisis
November 13th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Hello again,
I don’t mean to horde the boards so I guess this is an open question for open discussion if anyone wants to address it.
There is a debate, among those who appreciate the upcoming economic disaster, whether the US economy will be facing a deflationary depression or hyperinflation. I think I understand Steve’s postulation why there will be debt deflation rather than hyperinflation (see a couple of comments above)… if I’m off base, Steve’s upcoming post will certainly lay out the case in exemplary detail.
I imagine that in order to create a hyperinflationary scenario, the government would have to’print money’ higher than GDP (several times higher)… and it would be interesting to see those ratios in Zimbabwe, Weimar, Argentina etc compared to the US right now.
But could a hyperinflationary scenario occur even with massive deflation occurring? What I mean is this, could deflation occur (consumer prices lose their value in terms of gold), however due to the complete collapse of the US dollar, the paper money is worthless to purchase those goods, just like in a nation suffering from hyperinflation? Net result is the same, the money is worthless in purchasing power, however the mechanism responsible is different?
Regards,
Washington
November 13th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Hi Washington!
In a hyper-inflationary scenario, the supply of money will increase exponentially. Prices will be extremely unstable as it will rise by the hour. As a result, any official measurement of price levels will be very unreliable. This means that any measurement of real GDP will be very unreliable too. Therefore, any measurement of real GDP to money supply will be irrelevant in such an extreme scenario.
If you want to learn more about hyperinflation in Weimar Germany, I recommend this book, “The Economics of Inflation” by Costantino Bresciani – Turroni, an economist who lived through the German Hyperinflation of the 1920s. That book was first published in Italian in 1931 and the English edition was first published in 1937. It’s quite a detailed quantitative account of what happened. Those who love numbers will love that book. You can download that book for free at Mises.org.
Deflation is what should happen given the economic system that we have today. But the authorities know that too and I don’t doubt they are keen to avoid a second Great Depression. It is what they do to fight against what should be i.e. fight against the ‘gods’ that determines what the end game will be.
There’s a polarising inflation/deflation debate around and I’ve written an article to draw out the battle lines in clear for those who wants to navigate through this confusing debate- Understanding the big picture in the inflation-deflation debate. That article is not meant to be an economic premier. Instead, it is explaining the issue from a philosophical/big picture perspective.
My views on this issue is pretty much aligned with Marc Faber.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
From the URL I posted earlier on hyperinflation:
“Germany (1923-1924, 1945-1948)
During WWI, Germany borrowed heavily expecting that they would win the war and have the losers repay the loans. In addition to these debts, Germany faced huge reparation payments. Together, these debts exceeded Germany’s GDP. In 1923, when Germany could no longer pay reparations, French and Belgium troops moved in to occupy the Ruhr, Germany’s main industrial area. Without this major source of income, the government took to printing money which resulted in hyperinflation took hold.”
Could Germany have avoided increasing base money under the circumstances of being broke? Would not this imply one catalyst is the huge debt situation of the US government itself possibly war debt broke from its somewhat failing global intrusions? The US monetary base has also accelerated up.
http://www.dollardaze.org/blog/?post_id=00496
I may be a bit more fatalist here, I wonder if it is not so much to do with Ben Bernanke or other officials who will just react but to the unique mix that is actually going on and perhaps that mix will dictate deflation or hyperinflation.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am
With respect to the alleged ‘undersupply’ of rental housing, I think we also have to keep in mind the geographical location of the ‘undersupply’. I live in a small rural village located between two large regional centres with university campuses in both and a very large gold mine currently operating and another proposed to recommence mining down the road. Despite this, for the first time in 4.5 years there are properties for rent in my village and in fact in the past 2 weeks, 7 properties have become available where there have previously been very little movement in the tight rental market. The rent is relatively cheap (between $120-$170 pweek)for a free-standing house and wages are high thanks to the mine and government industries. So what does this mean or is it just a coincidence?
November 14th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Hear! Hear! Alan – couldn’t agree with you more. Until such time as the government takes the bull and powerful RE/”investor” interests by the horns and at least drastically modifies taxation policy to encourage the construction of new housing, not just “flipping” of existing stock, affordability will remain an increasing problem.
To paraphrase one of the subjects of the “Wisdom” exhibition in the NSW State Library (sorry but I can’t remember who said this), wisdom is about doing things that are right for the following generations, not for us. Our current system is all about looking after the incumbent property owner at the expense of those that will need to get into their own home in the future.
On a practical level, I’ve always been hugely uncomfortable with the notion pushed by RE spruikers that the key to wealth was to have a large portfolio of “investment” properties. If everyone were to follow this “advice”, who would live in them?
r2t2 – Could it be that the properties now coming available for rent were in reality bought for the quick “flip”? Now that prices have stopped rising, these speculators are finding they have to either sell them into a weak market or rent them out to cover the holding costs. It all points to this “boom” having been one big speculative orgy.
It still flaws me to think that our society is so conditioned to think that rising house prices are a good thing and that a fall should be avoided at all costs. Why is it though that we hate it when everything else goes up in price?
November 14th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Regarding the supply of housing…
Whether there is an oversupply or an undersupply depends on the social norms prevalent at the time and the finances required to maintain those social norms.
The rise of the nuclear family and collapse of the extended family has probably had a bigger impact on housing stock than almost any other factor. This is without taking into account rising divorce rates in the baby boomer generation. I saw a statistic some time back which claimed that Sydney had more spare rooms than any other major city on earth — not good.
Here’s a snap-shot of my extended family (my parents are divorced and so are my wife’s parents… so are most of my friend’s parents for that matter):
Mother & step-father – 6 bed house with 2 occupants (5 spare rooms).
Father & girlfriend – 2 bed flat with 2 occupants (1 spare room).
Grandmother – 3 bed flat with 1 occupant (2 spare rooms).
Granfather – 3 bed flat with 1 occupant (2 spare rooms)
Brother & wife – 3 bed house with 2 occupants (2 spare rooms).
My wife & I – 4 bed house with 2 occupants (3 spare rooms).
Wife’s father – 3 bed townhouse with 1 occupant (2 spare rooms).
Wife’s mother – 2 bed flat with 1 occupant (1 spare room).
Wife’s sister’s family – 5 bed house with 2 adults and 1 baby (3 spare rooms).
Wife’s brother’s family – 4 bed house with 2 adults and 1 baby (2 spare rooms).
… you get the picture. My family and my wife’s family would not be considered particularly wealthy. No one has “invested” in property.
I think that there is an incredible untapped over-supply of housing stock in Australia even before taking into account the investment-driven Ponzi scheme. As the economy plummets into heavy recession if not depression, then people will choose to live with each other again (or forced to).
On another note, I’m looking forward to seeing Steve’s debate between hyper-inflation and deflation. The spanner in the works of the formal economic arguement as far I’m concerned is the severe risk that China and other countries with surpluses will stop funding the US’s deficits resulting in the default of US Treasury bonds. Yes, China has a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo but eventually something has to give. It can’t be too long before they walk away from the bad debt that is the entire US (govt, consumers, corporate) and divert the funds into pumping up domestic demand (as demonstrated in their recent fiscal stimulus package). If this happens then bye bye USD and other currencies of debtor nations (UK, Australia, NZ, Ireland, Eurozone, Eastern Europe, parts of South America). If a nation’s sovereign bonds and currency crashes, and that nation is highly dependent on imports demoninated in forex then how can you have deflation?
The other big variable is war. History shows that the most politically expedient way to side-step economic disasters like this in the short-term is to start a war. The US may be bankrupt but it sure as hell has a lot of nuclear weapons. (Sorry to detour into this issue but examining economics without war is a bit limited, particularly as the US domestic economy is so reliant on a permanent war machine).
November 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The big issue ahead for the world will be the way of the US dollar.
The pouring on of US debt thus far, and likely ahead is unprecendented. At some future time a tipping point will surely be reached whereby faith and trust in US credit becomes so withered, that the fear of substantial currency losses and bond failures will take hold.
Divesting of the US dollar, or substantially marking way down it’s purchasing power can unfold into a full blown currency crisis that will devastate the US in it’s current weakened state and cause huge turmoil in world financial system. I’m wondering if this issue- the USD as the worlds reserve currency- is not a focal point for the G20 meeting.
The US is in a precarious position. Like China, it should implement a massive stimulation program in order to take up some of the void left by the consumer spending collapse. Yet, being as broke as it is, this will require the forebearance and cooperation of all Her creditors and dollar holders so as to avoid a devastating flight from US capital markets.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Hi GSM,
The $US story is interesting in light of the fact that currency markets are very unusual as they are all relative to each other. If gold goes down in price, nothing has to go up. In the currency markets, if the $US goes up relative to the Euro, then the Euro has gone down.
If you say the $US will at some stage collapse. Will that be against all currencies or just Euro, Yen, Pound, etc?
The $US may collapse, but the $A may collapse more because we are so little and our debt is so great.
One pointer to currency moves in the longer term could be currency strength for the saver nations and currency weakness for the borrower nations.
Another important long term factor is that the US has a very large population that is organised and pays a lot of tax. So in the future the US may still be able to generate more income than any other nation on earth.
These are not short term observations though. The short term moves seem to be occurring because of deflationary forces. Ie, De-leveraging. How long and hard that goes on for is very much up for debate.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Hi Alan – although I agree with most of the views expressed on this blog and hence I read it every day I must point out that I don’t feel ripped off with regards my move to Australia – for a number of reasons I am better off and as the world slides down hill economically there is no better place for me .
Australia, in my opinion , is well placed to bounce back quicker and with the least amount of impact on the majority of its citizens than 90% of the countries in the world and this is the 4th one I have spent more than 12 months in .
Hey I’m just trying to buy the biggest house I can afford on the waters edge with my yacht moored off the jetty !!!!
Regards George
November 14th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Looks like people here aren’t the only ones talking about the $US not being the world reserve any more!! Nicholas Sarkozy was saying this today.
“I leave for Washington tomorrow to explain that the dollar, which at the end of World War II was the only world currency, can no longer claim to be the sole world currency,” Sarkozy said.
See the lot here.
http://money.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=665632
Go for Gold!!!
November 14th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
For a currency in danger of collapse look no further than the UK.
The pound is looking very fragile at the moment after the B of E’s surprise 1.5% rate cut despite inflation running at 5.2%.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7280.html
I hope the RBA is taking note. There could be a lesson in there for us.
November 14th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Hi Steve and everyone!
I was just wanting everyone’s opinion on Super Funds. My Super is Uni Super – High Growth. My account has taken a hit of 8K. Maybe, people here can advise the best thing to do. Switch to balanced, conservative or convert to cash, bonds etc? or let it be.
Any insights would be really appreciated.
I was convinced by those greedy bankers while I was in the US and invested in mutual funds and they took a massive hit and I bailed out ultimately with a 40% loss and I recovered some of it in US Taxes.
I Don’t want that to happen again!
I don’t have any debts but have put all my savings into an offset account that offsets my brothers mortgage to sustainable levels otherwise he was sweating it out with extra interest payments. I live with him and save on rent and he benefits too.
November 14th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
I agree that home prices are WAY overvalued in comparison to average income. I think that many of these other so-called “economics” don’t live in the real world.
Steve, I’m wondering what your opinion is on the Austrian School of Economics?
Do you think that they are right with most of their assumptions and theories?
November 14th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I agree that home prices are WAY overvalued in comparison to average income. I think that many of these other so-called “economics” don’t live in the real world.
Steve, I’m wondering what your opinion is on the Austrian School of Economics?
Do you think that they are right with most of their assumptions and theories?
Thanks.
November 14th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Steve,
What’s the economic difference between:
The Treaty of Versailles = Foreign debt 85% GDP
Iceland IMF bailout = Foreign debt 75% GDP
Australia = Net Foreign Liabilities 60% GDP
Versailles & Iceland resuted in hyperinflation and currency collapse.
Why will Australia not be similar?
November 14th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Peter,
Germany was a shambles, its industry in tatters, it’s people entirely demoralised and desperate.
Iceland was a Casino masquerading as a country.
Australia has gold (LOTS), energy, commodities and an industrious people.
Not that we won’t suffer, but indeed there is a world of difference.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Dear Phil,
The Austrian school of economics has some good ideas, but mainstream Austrian economics is too close to neoclassical economics for my liking.
They aren’t obsessed with everything happening in equilibrium, but they have a belief in a tendency towards equilibrium that means they implicitly believe we don’t stray too far from it.
They also have a very mechanistic view of money, and a Panglossian belief in the advantages of a free banking system.
Their model of production is as flawed as the neoclassical model.
However they do have more of an evolutionary focus, though the most evolutionary of all of the Austrians–Schumpeter–is somewhat derided by the Austrian mainstream.
My intellectual heritage owes a fair deal to Schumpeter, lots to Minsky, lots to Marx, and lots to Keynes. Austrians apart from Schumpeter are only of peripheral importance to me.
November 15th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Will house prices really come down?
I have looked at some trends that worry me.
Every currency are going parabolic against the Japanese Yen. The price of insuring against default of the US, have increased a lot, from a 5 to a 45 BPS spread in the last year, and other countries have experienced similar things, most worse. I think most have noticed that currencies have been going parabolic against the dollar, but most have missed that the USD is going parabolic against the YEN. Is the US bust? Are we far away from a total bond crash, where the US no longer maintain AAA?
Who are funding the US and the UK now? As far I can tell they are no longer being funded.
Another thing. China have said they will commit half a trillion on infrastructure. Bernanke have
made a point out of China going to have a big budget deficit because of that, assuming China will not sell treasuries. But who is saying that the money is not going to come from selling treasuries? Who will have a problem then? To much treasuries on the market?
You have this story in the economist:
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12582907
Bonds have clearly outperformed since 80, and the trend seems to be over.
Maybe it’s time for gold to shine?
November 15th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Currency changes and affects are very hard to pick at the moment.
If our currency continues to fall that will cause price inflation for imported goods at the wholesale level. Can retailers pass that on in a falling demand environment?
On the other hand, everyone is predicting that the $US is going to reverse its current trend and tank hard (because demand for their debt will collapse). When that happens our currency will rally hard and our import prices will resume their downtrend. That would be price dis-inflationary.
Either way, the overriding factor at the moment is debt deflation. This is accelerating as demand falls like a stone. The challenge for business in a deflationary environment is being able to price ones product for more than its cost (ie, make profit). There are very challenging times ahead for businesses.
November 15th, 2008 at 7:11 am
A comment on house prices!
As house prices rose over the last 35 years. Those that owned and didn’t sell saw their value rise for doing nothing. If house prices now fall very hard as many of us believe will occur. Then in reverse those that do nothing will see the value of their “wealth” fall while they do nothing.
It only takes one distressed sale in a suburb for all the houses to fall in value. Not everyone has to panic and sell or be forced by their bank.