Ordinarily I’d simply post a link to a media report in either my Gems or Brickbats page. But this quote from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer shows that he really understands what is going on now, in a way that no other person in authority seems to have done as yet. The full report can be found at:
Microsoft resorts to first layoffs, cutting 5,000
Ballmer’s perceptive analysis of what is going on is:
“We’re certainly in the midst of a once-in-a-lifetime set of economic conditions. The perspective I would bring is not one of recession. Rather, the economy is resetting to lower level of business and consumer spending based largely on the reduced leverage in economy,” said Chief Executive Steve Ballmer during a conference call. For consumers, that may mean less discretionary income to spend on a second or third home computer, he said.
Bravo. That is precisely what is happening. It is also why, though government action might slow down the decline, ultimately it can’t prevent a serious decline in economic activity. That can happen only gradually as we slowly replace debt-generated spending capacity with income-generated capacity. What the government can do is remove the logjam standing in the way of that process, which is the crippling mountain of debt accumulated by the Ponzi financing behaviour of the last 4 decades (and in particular the last one). But that will require much more drastic action than simply bailouts: given the scale of debt accumulated, either the debt has to be devalued by inflation, or written down via government decree.
We’re still a long way from any government official or politician realising that. But the fact that someone as influential as Ballmer has put his finger on the problem implies that maybe that day of realisation is approaching.






January 25th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I read Harry Dent Jnr’s recent book ‘The Great Depression’. It provides new support (using demographics & various market cycles) for the bears (grggh) with claims of a confluence of a peak in babyboomer (the largest generation in 250 years) spending by 2010, market saturation of technology by 2009, and a commodity 30year cycle peak in 2009 (this may have hit already..).It seems an impressively researched and praised book. He predicted booms up until now but over did it on the upside a bit (DOW 32-40,000 was a 2009 prediction made in 1998 modified to DOW 2009 20,000 in 2006). He also picked the 2000 tech bubble correction but underplayed it on the downside (expected only a 20-30% decline). He thinks this depression won’t be as bad as the GD because ‘our economy and financial systems are more mature and sophisticated, the likely continued strong long term growth in emerging countries, we wont make the same mistakes as in the GD, and we are in a 500year Mega innovation cycle…’. Having said that he sees the possibility of 10-15% US unemployment and DOW 3800 by late 2010.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Hi Mahaish,
I agree with both you and Steve on the macro shock as being a likely outcome for Australia. Rising unemployment will directly impact property prices. Yet interestingly house prices are already falling hard and unemployment has hardly moved yet. Falling sentiment can start a negative chain of events that will feed unemployment and further feed falling house prices, which will further feed negative sentiment towards housing. Etc.
The link between falling house prices and increasing banking risk is security. Banks hold houses or commercial properties, etc as security to protect their assets (loans). Therefore when prices are falling their security can become worth less than the bank’s assets.
Sentiment is a funny animal. When prices are rising sentiment towards property rises and more people buy. Even though houses cost more. When prices are falling, less people tend to buy, even though houses are cheaper. Weird hey?
In 1991/92 Westpac almost went broke. They had over-lent on commercial property and to corporate tycoons. When commercial prices crashed (up to 50%) they called in many loans. They did this even when some borrowers were making their payments.
Bank’s have re-valuation clauses in all their documents. If a bank fears that the security may have fallen in value, causing the loan to valuation ratio to rise above its max allowable. It reserves the right to revalue the property. If there is a shortfall, the bank could then demand a principal reduction to bring the loan back within its covenants. Of course very few have cash (or extra unencumbered properties) lying around to pay or they would have paid it off the loan in the first place. So the borrower is in default and the bank goes mortgagee in possession. Problem is there are no buyers (when the bank tries to realise on their security) because sentiment towards property in a falling market is in the toilet. Net result, the borrower is wiped out and the bank has to write off a bomb. Now multiply this by 1000s of customers and the bank is in big trouble. Unless it can raise fresh capital.
January 25th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
But Why wold the bank do that Bullturnedbear?? It seems like cutting off their nose to site their face. Especially if the mortgagee is making the payments the bank is undoubtedly making money from a asset that isn’t as valuable as they made the loan for, therefore making the bank a greater profit, leaving the bloke who overpaid to make excessive payments that they can (somehow) afford. Forcing a debtor into bankruptcy would not help either party as far as I can see.
Having said that it is a worrying factor and I will have to check my documentation to see if this is applicable to my loan and under what conditions they can pursue this course of action.
January 25th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
On the basis of his expectations about this crisis (and the reasons he gave here for them) Robert, I am not inclined to agree with his conclusions.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Look, I don’t know why none of you even addressed the primary issues here, the “cause” if you will. PEOPLE ARE BROKE!! In this environment, no one with money is going to be spending or investing it. PERIOD. This will continue to produce a downward spiral of debt default, which will lead to less lending, more job losses and less spending….rinse…repeat. The endgame…if the governments of the world hold together…WILL BE a repudiation of debt. The only question is how painful this process will be. NOT IF BUT HOW!! The ones who have benefitted from this financial house of cards are the ones who control the governmental policies, so if they act in their own self interest, (which there is no reason to expect that they won’t)..the problem will only get worse, and once again on a GLOBAL scale. They misdiagnose the problem, and prescribe more of what caused the problem, “debt”, and “maldistribution of wealth via compound interest”. Am I way off here?? I would like to know Steve’s opinion on this….but only if he is brav…errr willing to address what I have stated.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Steve,
there is alot of discussion about the coming US Bond market bursting.
What are your thoughts?
If govts can’t sell the debt to finance the promises doesn’t that bankrupt them?
And if the Fed simply buys the bonds doesn’t that create Hyperinflation due to printing money?
January 26th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Hi Ned,
There are two reasons Westpac did this in the early nineties.
1. Because the one that jumps first has a better chance of realising on an asset. If one waits when everyone else waits there is a flood.
2. Liquidity problems. If a bank has run a cash flow forecast and feels that in 6 months they will be out of money (and raising money is tough) then the only way to get money is to start calling in loans.
The mortagage funds and third tier lenders are “reviewing” and not rolling over existing clients now. It doesn’t mean those clients are all being sold up. Some are able to refinance. But some are not able for various reason and they will be on the market in varying numbers this year. The reason is the funders and depositors have become nervous and want their money back. The only way to do this is to call in the loans.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:04 am
Steve, it appears that the housing bubble sceptics might start to ‘understand’! in the ‘smh’ today 26/1, an article by Natalie Craig,”Australia is home to three of the most “severely unaffordable housing markets” studied by an international group that predicts that the housing bubble here is YET TO BURST!!” It goes on to say, “The public policy group ‘Demographia’,which conducted the study,said affordability in Australia was worsening relative to Britain,Ireland and New Zealand,where prices had recently collapsed”
“Australia would be next,it said.”Sooner or later,the inherent instability that characterises virtually all bubbles will lead to house price declines in Australia” it said.
and further at home,
Alan Moran, director of the deregulation unit at the institute of public affairs, said “…Adjusted for inflation,the average house price in Australia is now twice what it was 20 years ago.”
That should put an end to this argument, right?
Spruiking real estate dead,after all?? yeah right!government assistance for more debt to young people? yeah right!
January 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am
I can’t keep up with news stories about real estate. One week prices are dropping then the next week they are set to rise. In today’s NINE MSM there was one saying rents are about to go through the roof and last weeks there were articles saying rents were set to fall…And on and on it goes.
I overhear conversations at work and two people I know – both not the smartest tools in the box – are buying more “investment” properties and talking up prices even more. Both these fools are in debt to up to their eyeballs already. Should my tax money really bail these people when it all goes belly up for them?
I watch the news and it appears Rudd and Swan don’t what the hell is going on and are just parroting their advisers, who evidently don’t understand what is happening.
Yet the fix and the cause appears simple to me.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:56 am
No arguments with you here Deflationist, and I’ve been saying much what you say here on previous blog postings. Though I speculated about a wage rise solution, I don’t expect it to be tried, and my preferred solution remains the one you nominate: a (partial) repudiation of debt.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
George Monbiot (better known for Global Warming) has posted an interesting solution to the problems of the GFC.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/01/20/a-better-way-to-make-money/
Although “new” currency at a local level could solve many problems of the GFC it will never happen. Governments and Banks would not accept people taking control over their finances in this way as it threaten the tax base and challenges banks authority.
However, what will happen if we do move into depression is that people will trade and swap (with or without cash) and this “cash economy” (untaxed) will thrive. (eg A plumber fixes your taps for a dozen cabbages from your vegie patch)
A problem that this presents to government and neo-classical economists is that the “cash economy” (swapping, barter, trade) is not included in the ABS measure of GDP. As the cash economy rapidly increases the “official” economy will continue to contract.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Tommyt (and Steve),
There is more to the Demographia report. It goes on to say:
“Unlike the other national markets in the Survey ? Australia has thus far been able to avoid material house price declines. It seems likely that, sooner or later, the inherent instability and unsustainability that characterizes bubbles will lead to house price declines in Australia. However, were it possible for Australia to retain its highly over-valued house prices, there would still be a significant cost. Future generations would pay far more for housing than in the past, and Australia’s relative standard of living would decline.”
It is this ‘however’ that is interesting. Is it possible that Australia will avoid a massive house price fall given what is happening in the US and UK markets? The Demographia report mentions the leading cause as prescriptive land release policies – constraining supply; this is particularly true of the ACT, where the government basically runs on stamp duty on housing and thus has a vested interest in keeping prices high through restricting land release. And this government is kept in power by voters who have a vested interest in housing prices remaining high.
I wonder, if the US and UK had constrained supply of land, like us, why is our market not crashing? (look at the Demograhia report – there is no crash in Australia). What unique features of their economies made this happen to them, but not to us?
And finally, Steve, how does forgiving the debt of profligate people do anything but encourage more of the same behaviour? (I’m sure I misunderstand) I wonder, for example, how providing government handouts to big business does anything but encourage poor management, poor investment and the like.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Hi Austerity,
I met Hugh Pavletich, the co-author of Demographia courtesy of an SBS Insight program about a year ago. He’s a New Zealand and a retired successful property developer, and a very nice bloke as well. While I agree with his arguments about overvaluation of housing, I don’t agree that the entire cause is government restrictions on the release of land.
If this were the only cause of the current crisis, then the USA largely wouldn’t be having one–as you will see from the survey, much of the USA’s housing qualifies as affordable. The fundamental cause of this crisis, in my opinion, is the financial system’s willingness to finance asset price speculation–whether those assets be shares, houses, or three legged llamas.
This is also why I favour debt writedowns–but also only in the context of a substantial revision of the financial system via redefinitions of asset markets, so that the enticement to speculate on asset prices is removed. In our financial system it is the lending side of the equation that is fundamentally irresponsible, and also the only way out of this crisis is to eliminate the debt accumulated via this speculative lending. There will be plenty of unjustified winners out of that change, but there were also plenty of unjustified winners out of the system too. Ultimately I want a suite of reforms that tackles the root cause of the problem and prevents its recurrence, rather than ones that apportion blame but possibly let the problem fester once more.
In the system I envisage, the only reasons firms would approach banks would be for working capital and to fund new innovations when the costs of so doing exceed their retained profits, and the only reason households would do so would be to finance house purchases as an alternative to renting, rather than for expected house price appreciation. The banking system that came into being after the bankruptcy of this one would no longer be able to finance speculation on asset prices.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Be careful of Demographia’s motives. They are basically a lobby group run by conservative consultant Wendell Cox to promote unrestrained development. That’s not to say Demographia’s reports don’t have merit. Their long-running income vs house-price ratio has been very valuable in exposing the scale of the housing bubble.
Deflationist wrote: “PEOPLE ARE BROKE!!”
Just out of interest, how many people here have savings that could keep them going for months or years if they were to have no income for an extended period? By “savings” I don’t mean equity in your home, superannuation, or other illiquid investments, I mean cash or similar.
In my experience most people have very little in the way of savings, and are completely unprepared for losing their income.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
hi bullturnedbear
take your point re banks re evaluating or calling in loans. but in this climate-it wont get too far if the 4 majors start behaving this way.if the phenomenon gets too wide spread any government concerned about its political survival will act. if its one thing politicians have learned from the 30s is that they wont tolerate families being thrown out on the street. a messy expensive compromise will be reached at the expense of the taxpayer
January 26th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I think you can see the strategy of the Govt to prop up property prices as best it can. KRudd will have the Govt to step into the breach to provide loans that roll over soon that the Banks are unable or finding difficult to finance. It is then not such a short hp to doing something similar for mortgage related financing.
Combined with the inevitable lowering of reserve requirements and all sort of other goodies that the banks will be asking for to stay their hands on calling in security on mortgages,this will all add up to a very handsome sum that WE the taxpyers will have to fund eventually. It is what is happening in the US and UK- it will surely happen here.
I still see comments on here about whether or not house prices in Australia may or may not escape a severe decline. Wake up people, that boat has ALREADY sailed. House prices already ARE in decline in Australia and at a very significant pace.In Brisbane on average house prices are down5-10% already with many postcodes declining 20+% from their peaks. What houses in perth and Victoria, Sydney are not declining??
And this is without the severe unemployment about to roll through our economy. Many current mortgage holders will be forced to sell. Many of those get rich quick “investment properties” will neeed to be liquidated. As many households lose one of their 2 jobs they will be under pressure to liquidate or downsize. As house price declines become more widespread the more desperate sellers will settle for the best they can get, thus undermining further prices accross the neighbourhood. Banks will be forced to review thier LTV ratios (as Bullturnedbear noted above).Govt will not be able to fill that hole despite talking up a storm on what it is they will (plan to ) do.
There is every evidence that our Govt is about to send this country broke, just like the US and the UK Govts before them. All in order to “save jobs”, “save property prices”, “save banks” – by raiding YOUR savings.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Bailing out debts sounds like a necessary step, but how can the bubble be prevented from re-inflating?
Steve, surely a large part of the housing bubble is misinformation? From the RBA “Some Observations on the Cost of Housing in Australia”, it is obvious that property prices were growing much faster than the more rational rent prices. Would there be any way to educate consumers on an appropriate price for a dwelling? If the data is available, it shouldn’t be too hard calculate the value of property in a postcode given current rental information, and the long-term ratio of rental price to property price.
This wouldn’t account for regions that might suddenly increase in value (due to gentrification or a local business boom), or regions that might fall (due to decline in the neighborhood or a local business closing), but it could be used as a tool to inform the majority of potential investors how much property is worth.
I say that rent is more rational than property price because renters don’t speculate, and property investors do. The 0.8 (down from 1.2) people per bedroom in our current society is driven by house-owners toughing it out, hoping that their mansions will eventually double in value, and by renters living in subsidized dwellings. If rents rise, renters demand goes down. If house prices rise, house ownership demand often goes up (as they chase the bubble).
Do you know of any agency that could track rental and property prices, to provide consumers with a guide to the housing market? I really don’t think that existing players have any incentive to keep people informed, but I am pretty sure that the data should be out there.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
hi frank
dont think anybody knows how much gold is actually stockpiled around the vaults of the world. i wouldnt be too down on gold
gold is like the church. not everybody goes to church but its nice to know that its there.
in a crisis when all hope is lost people begin to bargain with god
well its the same with gold. in a crisis when all faith is lost (in the american dollar) people will bargain with gold
that moment hasnt arrived yet and im not sure if it will come any time soon.
see, most treasury officials and central bankers around the world still think we can beat this thing only suffering a few flesh wounds on the way.
we are in the first phase of the crises ‘denial’
we still have anger, bargaining , depression to go before we finally get to acceptance
as far as incentives to hold US dollars- i suppose the question is ‘as oppossed to what’
in this world the way it is, the only game in town is the US dollar, AT THE MOMENT.
even in the US’s darkest hour you can walk into any dark and dingy corner of the civilised world with a fist full of US dollars and you will find someone willing to take them off your hands. try doing that with a fist full yuan, or ruppees or even euros or aussie dollars
January 26th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Bullturnedbear, I enjoy reading your comments. Earlier you said “Rising unemployment will directly impact property prices. Yet interestingly house prices are already falling hard and unemployment has hardly moved yet.”
I’ve got some views on this – and have to say upfront, my thinking has been shaped significantly by my reading of Shiller on housing markets – so it’s hard to know how much of what I am about to say is my own original thinking, and how much is what I absorbed of his. Anyway, it is being applied to the current Aussie situation, so that is new.
I’m not at all surprised that the housing market has turned well before unemployment. In actual fact, it is fairly clear that most markets peaked late 2007 (activity) with price peaks occurring in March qtr 2008.
To understand why this occurred we need to understand what propelled the bubble. My view is that one of the most significant propellants was the bubble-associated myths that “house prices never go down” and “if you don’t buy now, you’ll never be able to”.
We all know that there is a premium to be paid for living in a home that you call your own (even while renting the money from a lender) over renting. As the basic necessity that we are purchasing is shelter, which we derive regardless of whether we own the property or rent it, the premium paid is for the intangible emotional benefits.
When we say that housing is in a bubble, we compare median price to median/average earnings, or rental yields, and say they’re well above what people historically have been prepared to pay. But what we are actually saying is that the emotional premium being paid is well beyond what historically people have been prepared to pay (and that is the important part because the emotion of being secure hasn’t altered since we clubbed our food.) (And note, the emotional premium relates equally to investors – they want to be financially secure.)
And of course, government policy alters the equation, but I would suggest their greatest effects are on the emotions of market participants (eg. FHBs with the FHOB).
The point is that this emotional premium didn’t go from reasonably stable rational levels to bubble levels in an instant – it happened incrementally – until where we were in March qtr 08 in Brissie when the premium being paid was actually 160% (ie. under conservative calculations, such as 10% deposit, the fortnightly cost of buying the median home was 2.6 times what it cost to rent it).
How did we go through those increments until we got to that point? – because up until then, buyers thought that prices would never go down, and even though they were paying an absolutely ridiculous premium, they thought that premium would only grow (as it had over the last 7 years – the positive feedback loops) and they’d be even less able to afford that premium in a few more years.
The spell broke somewhere along the line. Partly the shear reality that they could not afford to pay that premium even if they wanted (interest rates played a minor part because in many markets there were stil strong price rises in the last 12 months of the bull market.) But I think probably more important were the negative feedback loops emanating from the US housing market which had peaked 20 months earlier and the price falls were accelerating and making news.
I would argue that all of this forced buyers to examine the prices – the premium – that they were being asked to pay, and the herd began to turn.
That’s why we didn’t need unemployment to turn up for the market to begin to correct, it is why it would have corrected significantly even if there were no global economic turmoil, and it is why the correction will be very severe now that we do have major weaknesses elsewhere in our economy.
Personally, I always thought 30% correction in nominal terms was likely (perhaps conservative), but I’m beginning to think even Steve’s forecast of 40% is conservative.
My figures on several postcodes of interest in Brisbane (sorry for the hometown focus, but I’m paying for the data so…) show that house sales were down 70% in the Sept qtr 08 over 07. What’s more, sales were down 90% in the month of Sep 08 over 07.
Remember how Steve was copping a caning from certain members of the press around this period – no doubt those “in the know” were discussing what was happening on the ground – makes me even more cynical of the press, etc!
January 26th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Hi Brett,
About prices falling without unemployment rising, I was being sarcastic. I follow the notion that sentiment drives all markets. People turn bullish before the numbers show it and so too on the way down.
On the Northern Beaches of Sydney house prices are down 20% to 25% from the peak. This is only anecdotal, but volume of sales is through the floor as well.
Just prior to Christmas there were 200+ houses available for rent in Mosman (most expensive suburb in Australia measured by median prices, or at least it used to be). 200+ for rent is unusually high in an area where most are owner occupiers. I discussed this with my sister and she floated the idea that owners that had borrowed too much had decided to rent out their house to “ride out the storm”. If that was the case that market will crash big time before the middle of this year. In fact it has probably already crashed.
A banker also told me a story about Mosman (he lives in the suburb). He said a guy had gone to 20 home opens (in November) to view properties asking over $2M. In each case he offered $1.2M take it or leave it. He had two vendors say they would accept the offer.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
‘MACCA’ the use of the phrase “….talking up a storm …..”
is probably ill chosen out of deference to those poor buggers in Toowoomba is it Townsville . or all over the place !!!
January 26th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Hi Carbonsink,
I believe most people either have debt or hard assets. I agree, very few people have cash as a buffer.
I have been saying on this blog for a while. If you own a house sell it while you can. Renting is fine until the crash takes hold.
For the record I think a 40% fall in house prices is way optimistic. Are you guys aware that in some Counties of California prices are down 68% as at the November release of the figures.
Have I been reading correctly that housing debt in Oz is twice as bad as it is in the US? Then it stands that the fallout will be far worse here.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
al49er,
Point taken. But you get my meaning…….
January 26th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Hi All,
I had a new thought today to add to the debate.
I have believed for a while that at some point the World will get tired of the bailouts. When people see that they are not working they will demand that governments stop wasting money. If that occurs. It will be good and bad for Australia.
The bad is a depression sooner rather than later, but a recovery without as much government debt.
The good is that Australia is at least 12 months behind the US. So far our government has spent very little on bailouts. If we avoid major bailouts by the time the others give up our government will save a fortune.
The government bank guarantee is a big hole in my theory though.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Steve, Brett etc
Thanks for the details. I will have to do more reading. As for the comments that follow my last entry: so many different numbers. There have been many big numbers over the last six months, the one that struck me the most was the UK interest rate at its lowest in 300 years. That has to be bad!
But, decent stats are hard to find. For example, finding two-way trade figures – you will need to have a subscription, I believe, to the IMF Direction of Trade stats. ABS figures lag (and there website is not the clearest) and in the interim people, groups, such as REIQ and others cherry pick stats to meet their own agendas.
I think, that in addition to all the solutions proffered on this site and others, transparency and uniformity in global statistics is also needed. Otherwise, it is all too easy to obfuscate. Although, perhaps this has already been suggested.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Austerity, cherry picking is one thing. I’m starting to wonder whether it is now going beyond that – check out this artice
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24953284-5011140,00.html
Note the following “during the two quarters [Sep 07 and 08] the Brisbane local government area recorded a 21.4 per cent decrease in house sale figures from 3361 to 2643, according to preliminary data from the Real Estate Institute of Queensland.”
According to the Australian Bureau Statistics, in Sept qtr 2007 the number of Brisbane house transfers was over 3 times that at 11,488!
The postcodes that I track (I have data going back 2 years) cover 7.8% of the Brisbane Statistical Division (based on 2006 census). Over the 4 quarters that overlap with the released ABS data, sales in this area (in my data) have represented 7.4-7.9% of the ABS figure for Brisbane house sales.
So I would suggest that my data are reasonably representative of Brisbane according to the ABS data.
So I’ll go out on a limb here and say that in a week when the next housing data is released by the ABS on 2 Feb, for June qtr 08 the number of Brisbane house transfers will be 6,885 (+/- 5%) – a fall over the same period of the previous year of around 36%.
For September qtr 2008, my forecast is for a figure of 3,410 (+/- 5%) – a fall over the same period of the previous year of around 80%.
Let’s see how close I get
January 26th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
On dodgy stats, obfuscation , “cherry picking”, spin and mind management;
I am often reminded of Orwell’s 1984 with the all powerful Ministry of Truth- spewing out daily propaganda to the sheeple in order to keep them compliant, manageable and ignorant. Feeding their insecurities with soothing ministrations of supposed omnipotence. At all times making people believe they have all bases covered.
This is very dangerous. Opportunities for preparation are being squandered. Worse, the public is being deliberately mislead with a compliant MSM meekly serving the MOT and The Pigmen (big Banks and money men).
All data originating from a vested interest source should be suspect. Therefore, all Govt data is suspect.
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Steve,
Based on Orwell (thanks, Macca), you are a revolutionary.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Hi Steve,
You said “There will be plenty of unjustified winners out of that change, but there were also plenty of unjustified winners out of the system too.”
I don’t mind the unjustified winners too much, it’s the unjustified losers that I don’t wish to see, me being one of them.
You weren’t the only one who saw this coming and as such I’ve made sure that I have no debt and money in the bank (however safe that may be in the longer term is anyone’s guess).Strange how it is that so many suggested remedies of this mess we are entering revolve around punishing those of us that have been prudent and farsighted with our business. The ‘perceived wisdom’ of inflating out of this mess and the lunacy that came from Anatole Kaletsky of taxing savings so we would spend are but 2 examples. Default may be harsh, but it will clean up the mess much quicker than any other ‘remedy’ I can think of.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Steve,
I am interested in how you mentioned you would possibly be in favour of “debt writedowns”, and also when you said there would be some unjustified winners.
Can you elaborate on this? What groups, or type of people would you target first? How would you rationalise who should benefit and who shouldn’t? Those who took the initial risks need to be prepared for the losses. Even though the banks promoted lending to speculate (implicitly) – those who didn’t suffer the “greater fool” theory should be rewarded for being a fair and reasonable citizen. This is ultimately the goal of an ideal society (although the government doesn’t seem to think so).
I would also be interested to hear your views on APRA. Considering what has occurred over the past decade (and possibly longer), they certainly have a lot to answer for in terms of “regulation”. Understanding that the solution to these crises is rigorous control of the financing of credit (both in upwards and downwards perturbations), why wouldn’t APRA take note of more modern theory in order to satisfy part of their mission statement?:
http://www.apra.gov.au/aboutApra/
Foresight
* Our analysis of issues is forward-looking.
* Using all of the information available to us, we identify potential problems and actively pursue remedial action when necessary.
* We stay at the forefront of developments that affect our role by continually learning new skills and enhancing our knowledge.
Mind you, I’m placing aside all hidden agendas. I wouldn’t like to think that our Government has some conflict of interest in promoting house price growth. No, no, it couldn’t be…
January 26th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
hi steve
interesting idea jacking up the total price level in the economy thus winding back the debt to gdp ratio
my problem is i am against letting governments have anything to do with manipulating prices on such a large scale. one of the few things the government or official family have a modicum of control over is the price of credit, and their record in this area to put it mildly is appauling. remember when headline interest rates were at 17% and the recession we had to have. and what about the last 10 years. had the reserve kept interest rates at much higher levels we might not be going through this debt induced vietnam. its not only markets that over shoot or under shoot.
also what about our exporters. surely such a price hike could decimate up to 20% of our gdp thus negating gains in the price hike. or have i got my sums wrong.
whether we go down the inflationary path or debt forgiveness path i cant see how it can be done without an international co ordinated response given the interconnectedness of the global banking system. if countries go it alone it will leave them exposed to all sorts of currency and trade related shocks.
as many fellow bloggers have pointed out, its not just an economic crisis thats coming our way but a psychological one. this raises an interesting conundrum. how far back do we need to wind back the debt to gdb ratio to overcome the psychological inertia thats building in the system towards lending money or borrowing money.
gone are the days of glad handing sicophants at your local bank. it wont be long before you will have to put up with walking across hot coals and signing your name in blood, and the bank manager looking you up and down as if you were about to rob the place, in order to get a loan.
thats if you are not so sh*t scared about the world that it will be a cold day in hell before you ever borrow money again.
to me, winding back the debt to gdp ratio even back to 100% may not be enough to break the psychological eversion to debt that will keep building as this crisis unfolds. who knows i may be wrong, the banks and the government might have done a good enough job of pimping credit to us debt junkies that we cant help ourselves and that every bit of largess the government and the reserve bank will throw at us over the coming year we will spend .
kevin rudd would love us to do this, but i wouldnt count on it. but i think kevin should stop talking to us blokes and talk to the female section of or demographic, because every women i know is a shop aholic. apparenlty one can never have enough shoes or frocks
surely, instead of trying to prop up prices we should let them fall to a level that people again can afford to buy things through the efforts of their own labours.
we need prices to fall and time to get over the emotional scars before we deicide to start spending and borrowing again.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
‘Just jokin’ MACCA.
There was a hint you might have thought I was serious!
How often have people heard the retort,
“that was in the past, I put all that behind me and I’ve moved on”
Well now such ‘wankers’ ( I pray) are going to find it just a tad more difficult to walk away and ignore their mistakes, bad beahivour, and doing the wrong thing by others, sometime with little more than saying “don’t blame me mate, it was just business!”.
Hopefully they are not among Steve’s ‘unjustified winners” !
‘those who ignore history are surely bound to repeat it’s mistakes’
Boy aren’t they making some new doozies for future generations to look back upon !
January 26th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
hi bullturnedbear,
you are wright to think that the bailouts wont work. nouriel roubini was recently quoted as saying that in his estimation the totel level of toxic debt in the US system is anywhere between 3 and 4 trillion dollars. write now the american government has committed themselves to around 1.5 to 2 trillion which includes the stimulas plan. governments invariably get program costings woefully wrong. whats the bet that they will need to spend 2 to 3 times more than they think it will cost.
and thats not the only problem. i get the feeling that not only will they need to bail out the people that need bailing out but also the people that dont need any bail out. the people who arnt going under wont spend unless their debt burden is eased as well. its the only fair thing to do in the interests of social stability. why should only the incompetant be rewarded.
so the problem in the US may not be a 3 trillion dollar problem but a 10 trillion dollar problem. how you fix that in less than 10 to 5 years atleast is going to take a lot of clever thinking. offcourse they could get the zibabweyan treasury involved and clear that 10 trillion in a matter of days. wonder what a 10 trillion dollar note would look like
January 26th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
BTW, I am aware from a comment made in an email a while back that Melissa Ketchell reads this blog. Melissa, if you’re reading this, will you commit to publishing an article on the real situation of the Brisbane housing market, using my figures from the DNRW and ABS, if my June qtr 08 forecast is accurate?
January 26th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I was talking today to someone who lived through the Depression and the following observations are insightful.
1. People who owned their own home and had no debts found it difficult – but got by
2. People who didn’t own a house or had large debts found it very tough and suffered the most
3. Crime rates rose dramatically (mostly in the cities) as people became more desperate
4. Men would take “any” job to feed their families – often having to live away from home
5. Most people didn’t have that much before the Depression – so tougher times were not such a shock to the psyche
6. Today’s generation are in for a dramatic shock – the coming change of lifestyle will create enormous societal problems
7. The personal debt burden today is much greater – so the coming depression will be much harder
January 26th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Many keep referring to the notion that it is possible to inflate out way out of this problem. How many of you have heard someone explain how that will work practically? Yes, in theory it is a great idea to inflate our way out of this. But practically it can’t be done.
Credit destruction has been far far far greater that money creation so far. As the deflation accelerates explain how money creation will swamp credit destruction? The numbers for actual and potential credit destruction are astronomical.
Inflation is coming again, but the question is how long until we see it in a significant way?
My tip is hard deflation for two years in Australia followed by muted inflation and stagnant growth for many years to come.
Theory will not fix this problem.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Thanks Stats W,
I find that kind of practical info very helpful.
Being cautious at this time is very smart.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Just out of interest, how many people here have savings that could keep them going for months or years if they were to have no income for an extended period? By “savings” I don’t mean equity in your home, superannuation, or other illiquid assets, I mean cash or similar.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
carbonsink said,
‘how many people here have savings that could keep them going for months or years if they were to have no income for an extended period?
No problem Carbonsink. On a farm here and can grow most of my food and assuming we have deflation I would be right for quite some time. That said, people have to eat and so they need the likes of me.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Hi mahaish,
This kind of thing makes me suspicious http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1655001.ece
A respected chancellor and now prime minister deliberately pushes the gold price down and sells half the country’s reserves to China? What is this? Alice in Wonderland?
As long as UK, China and other such countries locked into the dollar system have an interest in upholding the dollar I reluctantly suspect such activities to continue, or I am estimating these people’s intellect to highly.
By the way, Steve et al, have you read a book called “The Dollar Crisis: Causes, Consequences and Cures” by Richard Duncan? It was published in 2003 and also foretold the crisis, and he also advocates minimum wages as a solution.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
carbonsink said,
‘how many people here have savings that could keep them going for months or years if they were to have no income for an extended period?
We sold the house in early/mid 2007 and have kept it in cash. I guess we could go for at least 10 years without working and still living pretty well. Maybe 20 years living simply.
Say No to inflation though
January 26th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
hi steve,
another reason the general price level increase idea wont work. the markets will price in our currency at a much lower level well before the policy is actually enacted, so the relative value of our debt if it needs to be paid in another currency other than ours , will go up. we will be back to square one. we would need to bring in excchange controls
January 26th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
‘Stats Watcher’, ‘Halcyon’ et al, that’s been among my quiet messages (amongst all the technical stuff) for some time now.
6. Today’s generation are in for a dramatic shock – the coming change of lifestyle will create enormous societal problems
3. Crime rates rose dramatically (mostly in the cities) as people became more desperate
“On a farm(let) here and can grow most of my food……..”
Remember all, there are two aspects ( at least)
to this drama, the ‘technical’ and the ‘social’
and as and when the technical plays out -
outside of the control of most of us –
it is the ‘social’( and political) that will dominate and that might be even harder to predict and might even have the bigger surprises !
January 26th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
hi frank,
you are right. central bankers have been manipulating the gold price for 80 years. gold is money. it is an alternative currency that poses a major threat to the legitamacy of all currencies . it is the only threat to the US dollar at present atleast until china and india get their act together.
right now governments can manipulate the price because they have enough reserves to meet the gap between supply and demand. but the situation is trending against them. there is a gap between the price of physical gold as appossed to virtual gold promises. people would rather hold the real physical assett as oppossed to virtual promises.
how long central bankers can control the supply demand gap depends on how long it will take them to debase their currencies and what event as a consequence of this debasement will stampede the herd towards gold. there is lot less gold than there is currency. the fundamentals of gold in both its intrinsic monetary and industrial commodity aspects are very sound in the long term. either way gold is heading up, but not for a while.
in a funny way a similar phenomenon is occuring with oil. producers are hoarding physical oil. countries like iran are storing oil in supertankers at the moment in the expectation of the oil price going up . the thing is they dont need to actually hold the physical oil, they could get the same result by playing the futures market.
again its this trend away from credit driven virtual promises to hard physical assetts
January 26th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Calvin & Hobbes: Prescient Analysis of the Global Crisis
http://i39.tinypic.com/15xs8t0.jpg
Very funny and very true ….
January 26th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Remember that the so called “unemployment” are absolute BS. The so called unemployed are divided into the whole popoulation that is of workage (14.1 million) regardless of whether they wanna work or not or even can. Of course they don’t count those not working out of that as “unemployed”. Governments, sheesh.
The total actually employed in the 2006 census was around 9.1 million with around 650K unemployed as of 9/08. If you divide the total that “presumably” want to work since they bothered to register with Job Network (around 9.75 million) by the so call unemplyed of 650K you get what I believe is a truer unemployment rate of 6.7% certainly truer than 4.3% as of 9/08. This, of course, does not count those that could not be bothered to register or are underemployed. See:
http://www.workplace.gov.au/lmip/EmploymentData?cid=JNPopulationByUnemploymentDuration%7CESAHome%7CNational%7CESA%7Canon%7CJob%20Network
The “official” US unemployment stats are at 7.2 but considering the above (non registration and under employment) some respected commentators put the true rate of unemployment at more than 11%. The US unemployment rate is at least more honest than ours in that it calculates it as I did (those officially out of work/total willing to be employed*100). If this can be extrapolated to Australia (“official unemployment” plus 50%) our true unemployment rate is more like 10%.
That’s why I simply laugh when people write in to such august journals as the Melbourne Herald Sun and say that more 95% of people are employed so why concentrate on the bad news? Hopefully that fella has read this and now understands why we concentrate on the bad because the so called good is a pack of lies.
The reasons I believe that house prices are coming down before we see any real “increase” in the employment rate are: Smart people are staying out of that market, they can see what is coming. Less competition equals a smaller sale price.
Also what we are seeing at the moment is that two income familes are being reduced to one and full time jobs are being lost to part time jobs meaning those that are leveraged hard are having to sell up those “illiquid” assets as they have less income to pay off debt.
Where I live is truly amazing to see. We got the boom about 12 months ago and the average price of a house was around 275K. Damn I should have sold, we talked about it about 15 months ago as we (I really lol) forsaw this but we really like our little period house and that won over in the end. So we are now deveraging as much as we can and spending money on the house to make it livable for the next 10 years or so. It has now dropped to 210K (the average). Our area is one of the more “affordable”. It is worse at the higher end.
And I join others that have reflected on the social cost. The increase in the crime rate is natural when one needs to commit crime to survive. While this has been a fascinating intelluctual exercise it will take a real toll in human terms and this concerns me more than anything.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Hi mahaish
I think the general idea is sound. People will want to store their savings in something they believe in, and also international trade will need regulation to prevent trade imbalances, something the gold standard offered. However, I am just not convinced gold will be the chosen path. There seems to be a growing sentiment that some kind of new world order will emerge from the failure of this capitalism as we have known it, and at is center will probably be some global regulations on international finance, with one aim of limiting trade imbalances. I don’t think they’ll adopt a gold standard, don’t ask me why, it’s just a feeling. Keynes proposed some kind of global bank that provided incentives to clear both trade surpluses and deficits, at the end of WWII I think. My guess is that governments will look at something like that.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Hi Chrisp
That Hobbes and Calvin strip just sums it all up! Brilliant.
And thanks Al49er for your tips about solving my trouble in logging in a few days ago.
This blog moves on so quickly. Blink and you might miss something!
January 26th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
hi steve,
got a couple of questions for you.
peter costello when ever he was asked about the debt always refered to the debt servicing ratio and that there wasnt a problem with the debt because the debt servicing ratio was very managable and that our net assett position was very sound. would love to get an article from you about this.
also im curious as to exactly how much real physical australian dollars are floating around in the ecomony. i assume its only a small fraction of the total level of spending.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Carbonsink and others, what do you think about the “value” of income protection insurance? Any protection at all from the worst case scenario?