Steve Keen’s Debtwatch No. 33 April 2009: Lies, Damned Lies, and Housing Statistics

flattr this!

"Lies, damned lies, and sta­tis­tics” is part of a phrase attrib­uted to Ben­jamin Dis­raeli and pop­u­larised in the United States by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and sta­tis­tics.” The state­ment refers to the per­sua­sive power of num­bers, the use of sta­tis­tics to bol­ster weak argu­ments, and the ten­dency of peo­ple to dis­par­age sta­tis­tics that do not sup­port their posi­tions. (Wikipedia)

Two recent speeches by the RBA sup­ported the con­tention that Aus­tralian house prices are no longer over­val­ued, that mort­gage repay­ment costs have returned to his­toric aver­ages, that Aus­tralia is suf­fer­ing a hous­ing short­age, and there­fore that the Aus­tralian hous­ing mar­ket should not expe­ri­ence the cat­a­strophic falls that are now com­mon­place across the OECD–and espe­cially in the USA.

Ric Battellino’s speech to the Urban Devel­op­ment Insti­tute of Aus­tralia (An Update on the Econ­omy and Finan­cial Devel­op­ments) gave no data, but was opti­mistic about the future prospects of the hous­ing sec­tor. The data sup­port­ing this opti­mism was sup­plied in a speech by Anthony Richards to the 4th Annual Hous­ing Con­gress (Con­di­tions and Prospects in the Hous­ing Sec­tor).

Though Richards acknowl­edged that prices had fallen some­what in 2008, he empha­sised that this was less than had been expe­ri­enced over­seas. He also hypoth­e­sised that our mar­ket would not suf­fer sim­i­lar falls in the future:

there are a num­ber of rea­sons to think that out­comes here might remain bet­ter than else­where. These relate both to the role of pol­icy in respond­ing to the down­turn and the con­sol­i­da­tion of house­hold finances that has occurred in Aus­tralia since our hous­ing boom slowed ear­lier in this decade, around the end of 2003.

Two key pieces of evi­dence Richards pre­sented were the fol­low­ing graphs. The first com­pares cur­rent mort­gage repay­ments to a “long run aver­age” that was based on data from June 1986 until now.

On this indi­ca­tor, a house pur­chase is cur­rently about 15% more afford­able than the long term aver­age (the dot on the graph esti­mates cur­rent afford­abil­ity after recent rate cuts).

The sec­ond graph shows the ratio of the median dwelling price to house­hold dis­pos­able income, again with a com­par­i­son to the aver­age (this time from 1993 till now).

From this per­spec­tive, hous­ing was not quite as afford­able when com­pared to his­toric aver­ages as the above mea­sure implies, (since the for­mer includes the impact of today’s very low inter­est rates whereas the lat­ter does not). But it was still only mar­gin­ally above the his­tor­i­cal aver­age, and Richards sur­mised that the ris­ing trend up till 2003 may have reflected the tran­si­tion to a lower infla­tion environment:

In addi­tion to mort­gage rates, the sec­ond deter­mi­nant of stan­dard afford­abil­ity mea­sures is the ratio of hous­ing prices to income. At present, this ratio remains slightly above its aver­age over the low-inflation period (Graph 3). Of course, there may be good rea­sons for it to have expe­ri­enced a trend increase over recent decades as the econ­omy adjusted to a struc­tural shift to lower inflation.

Richards’ over­all con­clu­sion was that, on the sta­tis­tics, Aus­tralian house prices were not overvalued,

… it is note­wor­thy that the hous­ing price to income ratio has declined sig­nif­i­cantly since its peak in late 2003. Over the period since end 2003, nation­wide house prices have grown on aver­age by 4 per cent per annum, ver­sus annual growth of 14 per cent in the prior five-year period. And the growth rate of house prices in the past five years has been well below the 8 per cent aver­age annual nom­i­nal growth in house­hold dis­pos­able incomes.

So the price-income ratio, a fre­quently used –  but crude –  mea­sure of hous­ing price val­u­a­tion sug­gests that any over­val­u­a­tion of hous­ing prices has eased sig­nif­i­cantly since the Aus­tralian hous­ing boom slowed sig­nif­i­cantly in late 2003. Since then, house­holds have had sig­nif­i­cant income growth, but that growth has flowed only to a mod­est extent into hous­ing prices.

Richards expressed some reser­va­tions about the degree of under­sup­ply of hous­ing in the Aus­tralian mar­ket, but over­all agreed with the com­mon assess­ment that the rel­a­tive short­age of hous­ing sup­ply would place a floor under the Aus­tralian mar­ket, in con­trast to the over­sup­ply sit­u­a­tion in the USA:

What­ever the true short­fall of dwellings, we can say with some con­fi­dence that our hous­ing mar­ket is rel­a­tively tight. This can be con­trasted with the US mar­ket which many observers char­ac­terise as hav­ing been sub­ject to over­build­ing dur­ing their hous­ing boom. And the rel­a­tive tight­ness of the Aus­tralian hous­ing mar­ket is one fac­tor that will sup­port home-building in the period ahead.”

His con­clu­sion sup­ported the belief that, even though a reces­sion will occur, the hous­ing sec­tor will not suf­fer price falls like those that are com­mon­place over­seas, nor will prob­lems with hous­ing exac­er­bate the reces­sion itself. If any­thing, the hous­ing sec­tor should boost the wider econ­omy rather than drag it down:

First, the recent sig­nif­i­cant falls in the cash rate are hav­ing pos­i­tive effects on the econ­omy and the house­hold sec­tor, and have con­tributed to a sig­nif­i­cant improve­ment in house­hold cash flows and in mea­sures of hous­ing afford­abil­ity for peo­ple pay­ing mort­gages or con­tem­plat­ing home own­er­ship. Sec­ond, although home-building is likely to remain weak in the near term, there are a num­ber of fac­tors which should sup­port activ­ity over the medium term, pro­vid­ing stim­u­lus to the broader econ­omy. Finally, when one looks at the behav­iour of the house­hold sec­tor over the past five years –  in par­tic­u­lar the trends in hous­ing prices, and house­hold income, spend­ing and bor­row­ing –  it is evi­dent that there has been a sig­nif­i­cant degree of con­sol­i­da­tion since the hous­ing boom slowed in 2003. This will reduce the vul­ner­a­bil­ity of the house­hold sec­tor in the cur­rent slowdown.

Richards analy­sis, along with Battellino’s implicit endorse­ment of its con­clu­sions, was picked up by com­men­ta­tors like Alan Woods in “Hous­ing dam­age won’t be dras­tic” (The Aus­tralian, April 03):

Now, of course, we have the worst global reces­sion since the ‘30s and an inter­na­tional credit cri­sis, but an author­i­ta­tive analy­sis last week by Anthony Richards, the Reserve Bank of Australia’s res­i­dent hous­ing expert, high­lights sev­eral impor­tant rea­sons for expect­ing Aus­tralian hous­ing prices to per­form bet­ter than in many other countries.

Woods was reas­sured by the reported fall in “the ratio of hous­ing prices to income, … Richards says this sug­gests any over­val­u­a­tion of hous­ing prices in the boom years also has eased sig­nif­i­cantly”, and his qual­i­fied endorse­ment of the argu­ment that house prices will be buoyed here by “the gap between hous­ing sup­ply and demand as a result of a rapidly grow­ing pop­u­la­tion.” How­ever on the lat­ter point, Woods noted that “a short­age of hous­ing hasn’t stopped a crash in prices in Britain”.

Over­all, while he empha­sised that Richards’ speech pro­vided “an impres­sive list of pos­i­tives”, he felt that the reces­sion would still come out trumps: “the most likely out­come is at best a period of stag­nat­ing house prices, with a real risk of a fall, albeit a far more mod­est one than in the US and Britain.”

Now, in the spirit of Ben­jamin Dis­raeli, let’s take a slightly more crit­i­cal look at the numbers–starting with the com­par­i­son of the median house price to income.

House Prices to Income

The foot­note to Richards’ Graph 3 states that the fig­ure used for aver­age house­hold dis­pos­able income was “after tax and before the deduc­tion of inter­est pay­ments”. This is curi­ous, since the RBA’s own mea­sure of house­hold dis­pos­able income is after the deduc­tion of inter­est pay­ments (see RBA Bul­letin Table G12 and the Notes).

The aver­age line Richards drew on Graph 3 is also curi­ous, since it is an aver­age since 1993. This may reflect how long a time series for the median house price that the RBA got from the Real Estate Insti­tute of Aus­tralia, but it would not have taken much effort to com­bine this with the ABS’s median house price indices and pro­vide a house price to dis­pos­able income cal­cu­la­tion that went back to 1987. That is done in the next Figure–using index num­bers since I don’t have access to the REIA’s median house price data.

This Fig­ure paints a very dif­fer­ent pic­ture of the cur­rent house price to income ratio.

Firstly, there are now “twin peaks”: unlike the RBA’s mod­i­fied house price to dis­pos­able income  ratio that peaked in 2004 and clearly fell there­after, the high­est value of this ratio was in Jan­u­ary  2008. So on this mea­sure, Australia’s house price bub­ble did go off the boil a bit in 2004, but it went right back on again in 2006. Rather than our house price adjust­ment start­ing before America’s, on this price to income com­par­i­son our bub­ble con­tin­ued well after the acknowl­edged burst­ing of the US bub­ble in mid-2006.

Sec­ondly, rather than the cur­rent value being just a smidgin above the 93–09 aver­age, it’s 27% above it–and it’s one third higher than the “long term aver­age” from 1987 till now.

So which ratio is more valid here–one derived prior to the pay­ment of inter­est (Richards), the other derived after it? A case could be made for either: if you’re con­tem­plat­ing buy­ing a house, then you’re con­tem­plat­ing tak­ing on a inter­est pay­ment bur­den (and prin­ci­pal repay­ment bur­den) that you don’t cur­rently have; but on the other hand, you might be sub­sti­tut­ing rental pay­ments (out of dis­pos­able income) for interest+principal payments.

So it could be seen as a judg­ment call as to which to use–in which case, for objec­tive pre­sen­ta­tion of the data, you should present both.

Or per­haps use a few more indi­ca­tors to decide which one, on bal­ance, gives the more accu­rate pic­ture. For exam­ple, here’s the ratio of the median house price index to GDP per head. It is cur­rently 25% above the 86–08 aver­age, and the sec­ond peak in early 2008 is 1.65% higher than its 2004 predecessor.

It’s also no secret that income has been mas­sively skewed in favour of prof­its rather than wages in the last few decades. So how about a com­par­i­son of the house price index to aver­age weekly wages (ABS 630203, Col­umn J), which is a fairer analy­sis of how expen­sive hous­ing is for the aver­age fam­ily of work­ers?. This is cur­rently 43% above the 86–08 average:

There are those pesky Twin Peaks again, and once more the sec­ond (in March 2008) is higher than the 2004 one the RBA prefers to see as the peak of the hous­ing bubble–this time a sub­stan­tial 9% higher, reflect­ing the con­tin­u­ing ero­sion in work­ers’ incomes over the last decade.

Cer­tainly, it’s not pos­si­ble to make a con­clu­sive state­ment that 2003-04 marked the peak of the Aus­tralian house price bub­ble, as RBA offi­cials have done on many occa­sions, nor can it be said that house­hold afford­abil­ity is now back at the “long term average”.

Which raises the next ques­tion: just how “aver­age” was the 1986–2009 period, in the long sweep of Aus­tralian history?

House Prices over the really long term

The ABS has only main­tained a com­pre­hen­sive index of Aus­tralian house prices since mid-1986–a time when the hills were alive to the sound of Alan Bond and Christo­pher Skase. House prices rose 60% in the first three years of the index, far above the rate of infla­tion at the time. They then stalled for the next few years before more than tripling over the next 17 years–again, a rate of growth that far exceeded the rate of infla­tion. This 30-year-plus expe­ri­ence of con­tin­u­ously ris­ing prices has helped shape the belief that house prices “always” rise faster than con­sumer prices.

But “always” is a much longer time span than a mere 30 years–something Robert Shiller appre­ci­ated when he and Karl Case devel­oped the index of US house prices now known as the Case-Shiller Index. The key com­par­i­son Shiller makes is between house prices and con­sumer prices; this is the pre­miere indi­ca­tor of the Amer­i­can mar­ket, and there it’s clear that the bub­ble has popped.

If we take a 25 year view, like that which Richards used in his paper, it could be argued that the fall in the index has almost brought the real price of Amer­i­can hous­ing back to the aver­age. Hav­ing plateaued at a value of 217 between 2005 and 2007, it has now fallen to 138, which is just 11% above the 85–09 average.

But if we look at the really long term–over the whole data set from 1890 till now–it’s appar­ent that the Amer­i­can mar­ket has some way to fall before it hits the aver­age: even though it has already fallen 30% from its peak, it still has another 46% to go, if the real price of hous­ing is con­stant over the long term.

That’s an if to which Shiller gives an emphatic “yes” to, based partly on his own data–which shows no trend to ris­ing real house prices prior to the cur­rent bub­ble that clearly began in 1997–and partly on a yet longer term series still: the “Heren­gracht Index” that shows the real price of hous­ing on a famous canal in Ams­ter­dam over the three and a half cen­turies from 1628 till 1970. This index has at times risen for extended periods–such as over the 7 decades between 1814 and 1887 when the real price of a house on the Heren­gracht Canal rose almost four­fold. Any­one born at the begin­ning of that period could have eas­ily been per­suaded that house prices “always” rise faster than con­sumer prices.

But over the long term, there is no trend. For the next 7 decades, house prices tended down in real terms: the index fell 55% from the 1887 peak to be 40% below the long term aver­age of 198 in 1951, when yet another upward trend occurred.

Could a sim­i­lar propo­si­tion apply to Aus­tralia? Dr Nigel Sta­ple­don set out to answer this ques­tion in his PhD, where he observed that:

The period since the early 1970s has been one in which house prices have risen quite sig­nif­i­cantly by any mea­sure with the median cap­i­tal city house prices in Aus­tralia hav­ing risen on aver­age 3% per annum in real terms in the period 1970–2006. While the rises in Aus­tralia have been above the aver­age for devel­oped coun­tries, the pic­ture is sim­i­lar in most OECD economies and Aus­tralia is by no means unique.

The ques­tion that can be asked is whether this period is unique for hous­ing? Eich­holtz (1997) has con­structed a long term series for Ams­ter­dam in Hol­land which spans the period 1628–1973. The broad pic­ture that his time series paints is one of prices essen­tially show­ing no trend for three cen­turies, with cycles related to the eco­nomic events. Against that long term per­spec­tive the post 1970 rise in house prices in Hol­land stands out. But one city is prob­a­bly not con­vinc­ing…” (Sta­ple­don 2007, p. 1)

Stapledon’s key data table gave the median cap­i­tal city house price in cur­rent dol­lars, 2005 dol­lars, and 2005 dol­lars deflated by 0.6% p.a. to reflect increas­ing house qual­ity. In the fol­low­ing graph I take Stapledon’s CPI and qual­ity deflated index, extended to today using the last 2 years of ABS data deflated by the CPI. I then set the value to 100 in 1890 to enable easy com­par­i­son with the Case-Shiller real house price index for the USA.

One infer­ence from this graph is that the recent Aus­tralian house price bub­ble began ear­lier at much the same time as the USA’s (1997), but began from an already higher base that can be dated back to the 1987 Stock Mar­ket Crash.

At that time, the Aus­tralian index was only mar­gin­ally higher than the USA’s–132 for Aus­tralia ver­sus 120.5 for the USA, a 10% dif­fer­ence. But the 25% fall in the Aus­tralian stock mar­ket on Black Tues­day ended the Antipodean flir­ta­tion with stocks, and we piled right back into our favourite spec­u­la­tive play: bricks and mor­tar. Most of the money bor­rowed by Aus­tralian house­holds for spec­u­la­tive pur­poses then drove up house prices, whereas Amer­i­cans spread their lever­aged dol­lars between stocks and houses.

As a result, Aus­tralian house prices absorbed most of the spec­u­la­tive excess of the last thirty years, dri­ving them to 3.5 times the long term aver­age ver­sus “just” twice the aver­age in the USA.

Of course, it could be true that, as the prop­erty lobby keeps assert­ing, Aus­tralia is “dif­fer­ent”, and trends that don’t exist else­where in the world rule in the land of the mar­su­pi­als. Espe­cially since vir­tu­ally every­one now describes this cri­sis as “the worst since the Great Depres­sion, it would have helped if the RBA had referred to this pub­licly avail­able data when prepar­ing its own com­par­i­son of cur­rent house prices to “long term” trends.

The Never-Ending Under­Sup­ply Story

Richards did express some scep­ti­cism here on behalf of the RBA that Australia’s under­sup­ply of hous­ing was as marked as some com­men­ta­tors claim, but he still came down on the side of this widely shared belief:

What­ever the true short­fall of dwellings, we can say with some con­fi­dence that our hous­ing mar­ket is rel­a­tively tight. This can be con­trasted with the US mar­ket which many observers char­ac­terise as hav­ing been sub­ject to over­build­ing dur­ing their hous­ing boom. And the rel­a­tive tight­ness of the Aus­tralian hous­ing mar­ket is one fac­tor that will sup­port home-building in the period ahead.”

Curi­ously, one group that does not share this belief is Home­track, the local branch of the UK hous­ing intel­li­gence research group. Just days after Richards’ speech, it released a press release in which it stated that:

the widely quoted views of many prop­erty mar­ket com­men­ta­tors who believe that Australia’s cur­rent build­ing lev­els are not enough to meet the future demand for hous­ing, may be based on inac­cu­rate data calculations.

Our analy­sis indi­cates Aus­tralia may already have an excess of hous­ing.  We esti­mate there are at least 10 mil­lion dwellings in Aus­tralia com­pared with ABS data show­ing occu­pied dwellings of 8.3 mil­lion. The extra one to two mil­lion dwellings con­sists of a mix­ture of hous­ing await­ing sale or devel­op­ment, vacant dwellings, sec­ond homes, and aban­doned homes,” he said.

He went on to say that the ABS method for cal­cu­lat­ing the ratio of peo­ple per dwellings is based on ABS cen­sus data which in turn is based upon occu­pied dwellings. How­ever, he said, Home­track analy­sis which is based on postal address data indi­cates that Australia’s cur­rent level of hous­ing rel­a­tive to its pop­u­la­tion is in line with other Anglo economies.

Fol­low­ing on from this, Darcy said that when looked at in the con­text of pop­u­la­tion growth, total res­i­den­tial build­ing approvals have been run­ning above demand.

This points to a build-up of excess stock of hous­ing over the past six years, despite the gap between build­ing approvals and demand nar­row­ing over recent months,” he said.

The con­cern is that busi­ness and gov­ern­ment deci­sions regard­ing the res­i­den­tial hous­ing mar­ket in Aus­tralia are being made based on demand assump­tions that dif­fer from the actual behav­ior of the hous­ing mar­ket. There will always be exam­ples of areas with an under­sup­ply, but it’s not clear from the data that we have an over­all short­age rel­a­tive to future demand.”

Sim­i­lar views have been expressed on con­trar­ian blog sites like Bub­ble­pe­dia, Homes4Aussies, etc.; this is the first time this claim has been made by a com­mer­cial prop­erty research group. The claim that there are up to 2 mil­lion unoc­cu­pied houses in Aus­tralia may appear extreme, but that is the size of the gap between the num­ber of houses that the ABS says are occu­pied (8.3 mil­lion) and the 10,150,000 street addresses in Aus­tralia Post’s PAF data­base. How­ever, many of these are busi­ness addresses, hol­i­day homes and the like. On the other hand, the ABS found that 800,000 pri­vate dwellings were unoc­cu­pied on Cen­sus Night 2006–close to Hometrack’s bot­tom esti­mate of 1 mil­lion unoc­cu­pied dwellings in 2009.

So how valid is Hometrack’s claim? One way to assess this is to look at the growth of pop­u­la­tion in Aus­tralia, and com­pare it to the growth in the num­ber of dwellings. If this ratio was sub­stan­tially above the ABS esti­mate of the aver­age num­ber of per­sons per occu­pied dwelling, then the under­sup­ply the­sis would be con­firmed and Home­track would be off-track.

Whoops. Over the period 1985–2009, an aver­age of 1 res­i­den­tial dwelling was built per 1.75 new Aus­tralians, and only in the last 3 months has the rate of new build­ing fallen behind pop­u­la­tion growth. This build rate is well in excess of the cur­rent ABS ratio of 2.55 per­sons per occu­pied dwelling. Only if 30% of new dwellings involved the demo­li­tion of exist­ing properties–an improb­a­bly high number–would the rate of sup­ply of new dwellings be run­ning behind the rate of growth of population.

Far from hav­ing an under­sup­ply of hous­ing, Aus­tralia may well have a sub­stan­tial over­sup­ply. It’s just that no-one is liv­ing in many of them.

So what could these unoc­cu­pied res­i­dences be? Hol­i­day homes? Some, of course, but surely not all of them. It is far more likely that many of these include “hous­ing await­ing sale or devel­op­ment,” and “vacant dwellings”, as Home­track put it.

A very likely cause of this large stock of unoc­cu­pied homes is Australia’s sys­tem of neg­a­tive gear­ing. Most “investors” build houses not for the rental income, but for cap­i­tal gains, and rental returns in Aus­tralia are now so low that for many investors, the draw­backs of renting–damage to prop­erty, hav­ing to man­age ten­ants, etc.–are not worth the rental income. Bet­ter to keep the prop­erty off the rental mar­ket, and claim the loss against tax. The under-supply of hous­ing to the rental mar­ket, and the alleged short­age of prop­er­ties for sale, could be a per­verse result of Australia’s pecu­liar prop­erty devel­op­ment laws.

This implies that the mar­ket dynam­ics could turn out to be very dif­fer­ent than those who believe there is an over­sup­ply expect. If prices start to fall sub­stan­tially, then many own­ers who have kept their prop­er­ties off the mar­ket may be moti­vated to bring them out of moth­balls. The “under­sup­ply” of both rental prop­er­ties and houses for sale could thus evap­o­rate, and rather than sup­ply issues putting a floor beneath house prices, they could well pull the rug out from under­neath them instead.

A final issue con­sid­ered only tan­gen­tially by Richards, but vital to the ques­tion of whether “the forces of sup­ply and demand” will prop up Aus­tralian house prices, is leverage.

Exit, Stage Down

In defend­ing the dom­i­nant view that Aus­tralian house prices are jus­ti­fied by sup­ply and demand, Richards observed that:

the rel­a­tively high level of hous­ing prices in Aus­tralia is to a large extent a reflec­tion of demand and the col­lec­tive deci­sions of house­holds. That is, hous­ing prices have not been set at high lev­els by some exter­nal force. They are at their cur­rent lev­els because buy­ers in aggre­gate –  with their incomes, pref­er­ences, access to finance, and other influ­ences –  have been will­ing to pay those prices.” (Richards; empha­sis added)

This is a fairly typ­i­cal piece of neo­clas­si­cal eco­nomic think­ing: prices reflect the inter­ac­tion of sup­ply and demand, and are there­fore jus­ti­fied. In most mar­kets, there’s not much wrong with this way of think­ing; but there’s some­thing unique about hous­ing. You don’t take out a loan to buy the gro­ceries, but you do to buy a house. What there­fore will hap­pen to demand if lenders become less will­ing to pro­vide “access to finance”?

While the boom was on, loan to val­u­a­tion ratios (LVRs) were ris­ing; now they are falling as credit stan­dards tighten. Though aver­age LVRs are of the order of 50%, it’s the mar­ginal LVR that mat­ters, since that’s the source of lever­age for new buy­ers. Accu­rate data on this isn’t eas­ily avail­able, but the impact of a drop in lever­age can be dra­matic. A fall from 95% to 90% in the max­i­mum LVR a lender approves will halve the amount of money that a buyer can bid for a property.

Econ­o­mists who apply a stan­dard “sup­ply and demand” mind­set to analysing the prop­erty mar­ket seem to con­sider that demand can shift “left and right” as the vol­ume of buy­ers falls and rises with time; but they seem to ignore that the “demand curve” for hous­ing can shift up and down as well, in response to the will­ing­ness of lenders to increase or decrease their LVRs. A sub­stan­tial fall in LVRs to new buy­ers could thus reduce the price that would-be buy­ers can offer, even if there was a phys­i­cal short­age of properties.

Con­clu­sion: Safe as Houses?

The data in sup­port of the belief that Aus­tralian house prices will not suf­fer dur­ing the forth­com­ing reces­sion is there­fore nowhere near as con­clu­sive as Richards’ speech implies. The price index might well be dri­ven higher in com­ing months by the arti­fi­cial stim­u­lus imparted by the dou­bling of the First Home Buy­ers Grant (see FHB Boost is Aus­tralia’ s “ Sub-prime Lite”); but the down­side risks to Aus­tralian house prices could be every bit as big as those that apply in other OECD nations.

Aus­tralia is not there­fore jus­ti­fied in being “relaxed and com­fort­able” about house prices, despite the RBA’s assur­ances to the contrary.

This would not be an issue were the RBA sim­ply another prop­erty mar­ket advo­cate: it’s com­mon prac­tice for both sides of the prop­erty mar­ket to quote data that sup­ports one side and ignore the other. How­ever, the RBA is not sup­posed to take sides in this debate, but instead to set mon­e­tary pol­icy in the best inter­ests of Aus­tralia as a whole.

I have argued con­sis­tently that, in com­mon with Cen­tral Banks through­out the world, the RBA has failed in this task because it has fol­lowed an eco­nomic philosophy–known as “neo­clas­si­cal economics”–that is fun­da­men­tally flawed. But this is some­thing that, in some ways, the RBA can’t really be held account­able for: its econ­o­mists are sim­ply a prod­uct of aca­d­e­mic eco­nom­ics depart­ments around the world, and since these are dom­i­nated by neo­clas­si­cal econ­o­mists, most grad­u­ates are not going to know that there is any other way to think about the economy.

How­ever when it comes to sta­tis­tics, the RBA should play the role of hon­est bro­ker rather than advo­cate. Its monthly Bul­letin Sta­tis­ti­cal Tables pro­vide a valu­able resource. I believe its time would be bet­ter spent in devel­op­ing robust, long term sta­tis­tics on the hous­ing mar­ket than in pre­sent­ing selec­tive data like that given in this speech.

END OF COMMENTARY

Com­ments on Data

The lat­est set of fig­ures imply that the Great Delever­ag­ing is well and truly under­way. Aggre­gate pri­vate debt rose by a mere $326 mil­lion in the last month, with only mort­gage debt turn­ing in a positive–and were it not for the FHB Boost, the  aggre­gate debt level would cer­tainly have fallen.

Table One

Table Two

While debt lev­els have to fall, this process will nec­es­sar­ily cause a dra­matic blowout in unem­ploy­ment. Since our econ­omy became so utterly debt-dependent, the con­tri­bu­tion that ris­ing debt makes to aggre­gate demand has come to dom­i­nate changes in eco­nomic activ­ity and unem­ploy­ment. The recent “larger than expected” increase in unem­ploy­ment will become a recur­rent phe­nom­e­non this year, as the change in debt starts to reduce aggre­gate demand rather than increase it.

In this respect, we are not so much dif­fer­ent to the USA as merely run­ning behind it in time. The explo­sion in unem­ploy­ment that has vir­tu­ally dou­bled unem­ploy­ment there in the last two years will occur here, and pos­si­bly at an even faster rate.

As in the USA, what the author­i­ties are inter­pret­ing as a liq­uid­ity cri­sis is actu­ally a sol­vency cri­sis. Debt lev­els are now so high that the only way is down, and there are no other groups who can be encour­aged to take on yet more debt and thus pull us out of this cri­sis as house­hold bor­row­ing did when it brought “the reces­sion we had to have” to a close.

Now the only way for­ward is via delever­ag­ing, and the great dan­ger is that this will occur in a cli­mate of falling prices–deflation–as well as falling out­put. This process could drive aggre­gate debt to GDP lev­els even higher–as it is now doing in the USA: there the ratio of debt to GDP is ris­ing sharply, even though the rate of increase of debt has dropped. Fisher’s Paradox–that the attempt to reduce debt lev­els can actu­ally cause debt lev­els to rise–is now with us once more. The world is pay­ing a ter­ri­ble price for lis­ten­ing to Mil­ton Fried­man and ignor­ing Irv­ing Fisher and Hyman Minsky.

About Steve Keen

I am a professional economist and a long time critic of conventional economic thought. As well as attacking mainstream thought in Debunking Economics, I am also developing an alternative dynamic approach to economic modelling. The key issue I am tackling here is the prospect for a debt-deflation on the back of the enormous debts accumulated in Australia, and our very low rate of inflation.
Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to Steve Keen’s Debtwatch No. 33 April 2009: Lies, Damned Lies, and Housing Statistics

  1. Pingback: Westpac to drop lending standards - Page 2

  2. Dean Ashby says:

    Sta­tis­tics do indeed help to prove a point that could some­times sim­ply be point­less. I can still recall the fate­ful inci­dent con­cern­ing the hous­ing sit­u­a­tion in Aus­tralia and how peo­ple from all over the world thought that the prob­lem has been resolved but in actual state, it was far from set­tled. With sta­tis­tics, a sit­u­a­tion becomes so real that peo­ple choose to believe it over any other fac­tual evi­dence that might be present at that moment of time. Sta­tis­tics are the num­ber one piece of infor­ma­tion that peo­ple choose to prove their point because they look so believ­able and convincing.

Leave a Reply