Eric Aarons’ book Hayek versus Marx: And Today’s Challenges will be launched at Gleebooks on Friday April 24th at 6pm. I will make an opening speech about the book and its remarkable author. There will be pre-launch drinks from 6 till 6.40.
Attendance is free, but places are limited. Please contact Gleebooks on (02) 9660 2333, or click on the link to Request a place on Gleebooks’ automated booking form. Gleebooks is at 49 Glebe Point Rd, Glebe; the launch will take place in the upstairs room, which can accommodate about 100.
This is Eric’s 4th book. In a theme developed in the previous two, he explores the competing, and flawed, philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Hayek, especially in the light of the ecological challenges of today. Quoting from the promotional material for the book:
The aim of the book is to stimulate the realignment of political, theoretical and philosophical thinking that is now beginning in response to global warming. The author provides an examination of the theories of the most prominent social philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries – Karl Marx and Friedrich Hayek. He does so in the belief that the work of these two thinkers, in their commonalities and differences, successes and failures, contain important indicators of the content of a social philosophy suited to today’s conditions.
The book proceeds in the context of the failure of the attempts by followers of Marx, having achieved political power, to realise the objectives they took to issue from his theories, on the one hand, and of the earlier successes, but now emerging failures of the neo-liberal philosophy of Hayek to cope with the with the environmental outcomes of those very successes, on the other. In doing so, the book will incidentally critique postmodernism, because of its claim to be ‘Theory’ as such, which for a generation impeded genuine theoretical and philosophical work.
It should be a stimulating night. I look forward to seeing some blog members there–especially those who have an interest in Marxian or Austrian philosophy and economics.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
The business cycle is alive and well. Buy-and-hold, diversification, and MPT are rubbish. Steve’s work proves that the economy is unstable as the business cycle. I reckon annualised employment growth is the most stable economic series to understand, monitor and exploit the business cycle. Check out:
http://www.business-cycle-monitor.com for more.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Hi Steve,
Keep up the good work. I love your blog and appreciate your research.
The topic of this book seems somewhat silly to me. While I’m by no means a Hayek expert, I get the impression that environment externalities are but a small part of the overall Hayekian philosophy. Buying into anyone’s opinions 100% is a bad idea; I don’t actually have an opinion on the role of government and private institutions in fighting global warming, so I won’t say that Hayek is right here, but his finance and monetary economics messages are much more widely applicable right now.
It’s almost like saying George W. Bush was a total failure because he did a poor job stimulating the fine arts.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Steve’s work is inspirational.
I’m coming at it from a purely practical point of view, with 20 years in market regulation etc, the last ten in the area where Internet and Markets converge.
I reckon the direct Peer to Peer connections of the Internet change everything, and I think we need to look again at the foundational assumptions of Economics.
Towards an Economics of Common Sense
April 17th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Remember the old saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover?”. Ditto “don’t judge a book by its blurb”. Eric’s real purpose is to consider how the two utopias of Marx and Hayek actually become dystopias in practice, and there’s no way that Eric has “bought into anyone’s opinions 100%”. There is also a substantial component of Hayek’s writings that are uncannily like the “go forth and multiply” aspects of the Bible that some of our agnostic members were criticising recently when the discussion turned to the allegedly prescient aspects of Christian thought.
In this sense, Eric’s work is post ideology because he is quite capable of seeing the ills as well as the strengths in any given body of knowledge–which is why he is critiquing (and sometimes also praising) both Marx and Hayek in the one book. And he would be one of the few individuals on the planet who has read virtually everything both of them ever wrote.
So the blurb may in some sense be “silly”, but the book and its author are far from that.
April 17th, 2009 at 9:22 am
More on static equations and who saw ths coming, unfortunately Steve does not get a mention.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/04/macroeconomic_s_1.html
April 17th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
swiftly
That looks like a load of neoclassical crap to me, not one mention of time in any of the “equations”. Add to this some Bernanke supply and demand curves and what do you have? a power point slide show for the Mad Hatter’s tea party.
One point of interest, this carbon capture, “clean coal” question, the government appointed James Wolfensohn a lawer and banker to head up this quest?? Surely this is something that can only be understood and evaluated by Scientists and Engineers. What can a Lawer or Banker possibly offer to this quest? Bankers have ruined the world economy haven’t they?
April 17th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
I am a firm believer that unless this financial crises catalyses a complete rethink of economics, we have very little chance of meeting the challenges of climate change.
What is the logic of trusting economic forecasts under emissions trading scenarios when it has been shown the economic models used are completely inadequate at predicting growth without emissions trading?
Will read the book with interest.
ps: good point Bright Spark. But I’m guessing the lawyer/banker is needed to know who can get sued if clean coal doesn’t work and who will go bankrupt
pps: I recently discovered this great tool. Very useful for guestimating how change in sea levels will impact on the real economy
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/sealevel
Its goodbye werribee treatment plant (Melbourne, VIC) at 1-2m.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
For those who are marvelling at the insane disconnect between rising global stock markets and horrific economic data, this might cheer you up:
http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N=av&T=Federated’s%20Tice%20Says%20S%26P%20500%20Is%20Poised%20to%20Plunge%2062%25&clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vmFms7iicNKY.asf
(10 minute interview with David Tice — an analyst who called the crisis accurately and believes that the S&P500 will fall another 60%.)
April 17th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
hyperproductive
Sorry, I don’t think they even understand enough to be able to do that!
Same goes for carbon trading reports by neoclassical economists.
I get the impression that these people didn’t even do high school science and/or mathematics. You hear some very dumb utterances!
April 17th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Come on Brightspark,
You know much better than I that, a promise of ETS was and will be a pollitcal football to be kicked around, hence the finacial engineer
(how else can you explain carbon sequestration – or even pronounce it!) to make “clean coal” (HaHaHa – I have just turned lead into Gold – stand back everyone!)
This is about word games and fluid targets that will be met (of course!).
PS The last thing you want is an engineer or scientist pointing out the facts when you need spin.;-)
April 17th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Brightspark,
Wolfensohn was a purely political appointment. Read into that what you will. Nuff said.
April 18th, 2009 at 12:07 am
The “cap” in Cap and Trade Carbon EMS is trumpted by supporters of cap and trade as proof positive that ol’ Capn’ Trade will save the world, me hearties.
In fact, the cap is a FRAUD. Read the Green Paper and you will see that it is full of deliberate loopholes and get-out clauses; all for big polluters of course.
As one commentator has said;
‘Because carbon cap-and-trade systems are inherently super-complex, they are nearly certain to be “gamed” – defeated by gimmicks, litigation, and special-favours lobbying. Lawyers and financiers will always think of pretexts and schemes faster than regulators can repair flaws in the language of complex regulation.’
In fact there will massive fraud as corporations rig results for each other the way that AAA ratings were rigged.
Consider also the ultimate national get-out clause from the green paper. “The scheme cap would not be adjusted in the event that it is incompatible with internationally negotiated national targets and, if necessary, the Government would make up any shortfall in internationally agreed targets by purchasing international emissions units.”
If you believe the cap means anything after that then you are on much stronger medication than me!
There will be no real cap at all, in this country or any other. Greenhouse gases will not abated except by the next great depression and then the final collapse of capitalism. Capitalism will destroy the environment’s carrying capacity and thus destroy itself.
Marx predicted that capitalism would burn up all other values. I don’t think he predicted it would burn up all the “natural capital” i.e. the environment.
April 18th, 2009 at 12:34 am
will the speech be recorded?
April 18th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Hi guys
I have to refer you to this post by a truly wonderful character, calling himself “MrTweedy”, on the BBC economics editor’s blog:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/04/the_short_and_long_game.html#P78720176
He seems to know his stuff, and I feel that post is much in line with the Keen-sian viewpoint over here
April 18th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Hi Selise–and thanks again for transcribing the Big Ideas speech.
Yes it will, by Gleebooks (the bookshop where the launch is being held) and at least in part by a film crew that is interviewing me for a documentary on the financial crisis.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Man I think it would be interesting… but I’m in Queensland so I can’t make it.
However I would hardly call Hayek a neo-liberal philosopher (unless his own statements say otherwise)… he was firmly from the Austrian school, and there’s a world of difference between the Austrian and Friedmanite neo-liberal position which is commonly popular.
And I would not categorize the current crisis as a failure of free market economics at all.. I call it a failure of Statism and central planning. If this crisis was occurring in the absence of a central bank, with floated interest rates and no fractional reserve banking… then yes, you might have a point. But neither of these institutions and policies are the creation of a free market, but they are the product of politicians and a cartel of bankers.
So Marx lost twice.
For comedic purposes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCEUz264XHw
April 18th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Drwasho, to call this Global Financial Crisis a failure of Statism and central planning is only true if you mean that the State was not interventionist enough (before the crisis) and did not regulate enough (before the crisis). Any other construction is a fanciful misrepresentation of the facts.
The kind of free market you apparently envisage with no central bank, no fractional reserve system and no interest rate policy (to name your trinity) would be anarchy, or feudalism, I’m not exactly sure which one. Do you also envisage no state in general? In that case you must accept that competing warlords would settle money, trade and financial disputes in the manner traditional to warlords.
If you are to persist with your libertarian philosophy, you’d better hurry up and make yourself a warlord or a tributary servant of one.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Already way ahead of you Ftoomsh, but I’m sure you would have been happy under Soviet rule… yeah, didn’t turn out so well.
Pretense of knowledge.. ever heard of that?
And what is feudal about not printing money out of thin air and creating an inflation tax, that hits the lower and middle class the hardest, with prices that rise faster than wages? What is warlordish about a bank actually keeping your money safe for you and not lending it out to others without your approval, thus creating the money multiplier effect? What is so backwards about an interest rate being set on the proportion of a bank’s reserves to lent-money if you decide to keep FRB (you know, how interest rates should be set)?
April 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am
steve @8:14 am –
my pleasure and thanks for the corrections.
re the recording: that’s great. i will look forward to listening to your talk online then.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Drwasho
the state is the holding company for the wealthy as a direct consequence of the accumulation of capital and the power this buys. You’re world of freedom if only the free markets would be allowed to do their job is fanciful.
The only way is to spread the wealth and increase the level of democratic participation in all aspects of society in my book.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Hi All,
Has anyone read GEAB No. 34? It came out a day ago. I have only read the teaser. It seems to have some interesting analysis on Chinese investment, the price of gold and where might be a place to put some money to protect it from the crash to come.
I’d be keen to discuss their theories.
By the way. The call of Keen-sian economics was a classic. Well said Frank.
April 18th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Hey Marvenger,
I’m not in favor of spreading the wealth, so we clearly have two different visions. And I personally am not in favor of democratic participation in all aspects of society… mob rule is not fair at all. The rule of law must exist to prevent the mob from taking your freedom, money and family in the name of ‘democracy’.
Currently the State only exists to support it’s own interests, which only expand with the ever increasing size of the government. The State should rather protect the liberty of individuals… allow them to make their own choices and live with the consequences.
Freedom is choice and consequences, not the government interfering with my life and my money… and thus impoverishing everyone, equally.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Washo
I just don’t think the state is going to protect the interests of the general population while the mega wealthy hold the real power. The state isn’t just acting in its own self interest but mostly serving those that keep it strong, the wealthy. eg the police are mainly there to protect the rich not the poor.
You should only have to worry about redistribution once you are quite wealthy and it should be a progressive tax so its only an increase in profits that is taxed. But the fact is the super rich pay less tax in the dollar than the middle class. More democratic involvement is the only way to decide how these funds are spent or else the powerful will make sure it suits them, this means you need an educated public which the powers that be have been successfull at preventing develop.
i think its seriously naive to leave these decisions up to well meaning plutocrats. look at the world around you.
April 18th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
yes drwasho,
its common for totalitarian dictatorships to fit the word democracy into the title.
you know, get rid of the the most difficult part in the title and worry about the substance later
April 18th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
if you look throughout history and what happening now in places like bolivia it’s the rabble standing up and demanding to be heard that creates change. femminist movements, civil rights movements in US, its always the same, you need democratic processes.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
first law of bureacracy,
politicains make laws,
more laws mean generally more government.
so if we want smaller fairer government we need to have fewer and better laws
take the tax act for example,
get rid of all deductions and lower the tax rate, and get rid of a whole swaith of bureacrats and accountants in the process.
after all what are deductions other than the will of vested interests, and political pandering, enshrined in tax law.
April 18th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Hey Marvenger,
I’ll go through your post point by point.
>>> “I just don’t think the state is going to protect the interests of the general population while the mega wealthy hold the real power. The state isn’t just acting in its own self interest but mostly serving those that keep it strong, the wealthy. eg the police are mainly there to protect the rich not the poor.” <<>> “You should only have to worry about redistribution once you are quite wealthy and it should be a progressive tax so its only an increase in profits that is taxed. But the fact is the super rich pay less tax in the dollar than the middle class. More democratic involvement is the only way to decide how these funds are spent or else the powerful will make sure it suits them, this means you need an educated public which the powers that be have been successfull at preventing develop.”<<>> “i think its seriously naive to leave these decisions up to well meaning plutocrats. look at the world around you.” <<<
I am… and I agree with you. Nobody, not a State or ‘democratized’ people or entrepreneurs, are well-meaning looking out for the interest of others… I’m not naive. But I’d rather self-interest rule in the marketplace than State or mob rule.. it has the added advantage of being both smart & right in the light of history.
Don’t look at the current crises as a failure in free market capitalism… nothing can be further from the truth. It was so clearly the intervention of the government and central banks, and now we’re running to them to save us?
April 19th, 2009 at 10:56 am
private bankers created the Fed in 1913 because they had a crap load of power and wanted to extend it. If the people of the united states were listened to and had the ability to vote on issues that mattered, there wouldn’t be any imperial wars and abuse of the dollar hegemony to finance them that has led to this crisis. Something staggering like 95% OF THE POPULATION DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DIRECTION THE COUNTRY IS GOING IN.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Marvenger,
Hmm… we seem to agree with the problem but differ with the solution. You advocate taking the overseer control from an oligarchs to the people (i.e. democracy), whereas I want limited overseer power with the rule of law. The US constitution does not authorize the congress or the President to do any of the things you and I are upset about (undeclared foreign wars, the Fed etc)… however, the elected representatives have abandoned the constitution to take up their own Progressive agenda (both Democrat and Republican).
For the US, I advocate a return to the principles of the founding fathers.. namely a constitutional republic. The problem with democratizing everything is that the mob can be swayed very easily by oligarchs… people who promise free health care, free education, affordable or free houses for everyone etc. That is how we got to where we are in the first place… we need the rule of law to be upheld and our elected representatives to pass laws that are enumerated in the constitution. That goes for both Australia and America.
One more thing, you and I are very much in favor of educating the public. But you must be as aware as I am that the public would much rather watch the footy than learn about the money multiplier effect from fractional reserve banking. As a matter of fact, they don’t have meaningful intelligent discussions like we’re having… rather they argue about whether ‘footy’ means union, league or soccer.
Regards,
Wash
April 19th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Oh, and clearly it’s soccer…
April 19th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Thank you for the clarification on the book’s content, Steve. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that the author was completely against Marx and Hayek’s philosophies, but only that I am not completely for Hayek’s.
To the others discussing free market interest rates and our banking system, make sure you’ve read Steve’s “Roving Cavaliers of Credit” post for a good foundation on post-monetarist money creation. On top of that, one thing I don’t understand about the “no fractional reserve banking” Austrians is the fact that the process of fractional reserve lending is a natural free market process. Even if we’re talking about hard currency (gold or silver), one can still loan out money which has been loaned to him. The catch is that a bank – the one who receives the first loan (deposits) and makes the second (corporate loans) – will go out of business if it keeps inadequate reserves. The market cleanses itself this way as long as there are no government guarantees or bailouts. See: FDIC, TARP, etc.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Wash
I know where you’re coming from I thought along your lines for a while but I just don’t think the government and army are ever going to act in this limited way if their power is in the hands of the few super wealthy. Right from the beginning the constitution was ignored with the invasion of florida an executive war. It’s always private interests driving these things, mixed with a sense of supporting the nation and promoting freedom for private property of the wealthy I’m sure.
here’s an excerpt from a declassified memo from Kennan head of US state department policy planning staff late 1940’s. look up ‘PPS23″
“We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population…. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity…. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction…. We should cease to talk about vague and…, unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”
well the US backed Shah revolution, guatemalan coup in 1954 and endless CIA intervention and training of counter-terrorist, or counter-antiUS corporate interest pro people interest, agencies that have tortured and murdered untold thousands in the southern hemisphere in order to prevent democracy and people taking control of their own resorces and development has been a constant ever since. Look up declassified documents on operation PBsuccess for guatemalan coup, which was held as a an example of cheap effective intervention to promote US interests. Read ‘Bitter fruit: the story of the american coup in guatemala’, most of the US high officials had business ties to United fruit, which owned most of guatemala and repressed workers in poverty for cheap produce for US, which was being subjected to minor land reforms under guatemala’s first democraticaly elected government, this government had to go else the virus of national self interest set in which would be devastating to US corporate interst.
Sorry F*&^ the oligarchs, they invent and own the system whatever it is. True democratic processes need to flourish, then maybe people wont care so much about football if they know than can meaningfully participate. We’re a long way off from anything remotely resembling democracy, it would be a very unfamiliar world. But I think its possible, Bolivia one of the poorest countries around despite resource wealth, has managed to repel privatisation of its water for crying out loud with a grass roots movement. I think the US is losing some control and hopefuly some national self interest multilateralism can occur driven by the peoples participation instead of subservience to the US oligarchs
April 19th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
BTB, haven’t read it but I bet GEAB 34 says buy gold. Yes?
April 19th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
HI Guys,
I just read a really good article that deserves a post here:-
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/04/barack-obama-crime-boss/
This is a long article but a very good read for the following reasons:-
1) It compares the cause of the current crisis with that of the Great Depression (consumer debt)
2) It discusses how the current attempts to fix the crisis are inadequate and misdirected
3) It highlights what the real problems are and the fact that they are still unaddressed
4) It quotes the latest data on foreclosures (up 24%) which is at the route of the whole crisis
5) It reveals the mother of all conspiracies that could bring down the whole of America
April 20th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Hey Marvenger,
First of all I hear your sentiment and I understand where your coming from. Second, the history of oligarchical exploitation is almost unlimited and I don’t disagree with your disdain for this present political reality. Thirdly, I don’t look upon the disparity of wealth as the source of social problems… this is a classical socialist argument, which I know your in favor of, but it’s a fallacy. People deserve the fruit of their rewards and it is morally wrong for a mob to take from them in order to ’spread the wealth’. Not only is it wrong, but it’s a disincentive for the productive people to labor at the expense of the less productive people… natural law says that it’s unfair, as the history of failed communes and left-wing countries have demonstrated.
Under pure free market conditions, prices come down, purchasing power increases, competition is tough for businesses, which drives innovation and an increase in service quality.. it also provides the ability for individuals to accumulate capital begin their own profitable ventures to increase their standard of living. It isn’t easy, not everyone will do it and remain in what we comparatively consider ‘poverty’ (the strange kind of poverty where the majority of children in the US and Australia are obese). But the ultimate point is that opportunity, means and choice are there for the taking.
But I think we’ve butted our heads of this issue suitably, it’s an old argument, but I’ve appreciated the banter. You can have the last word.
Regards,
Wash
PS I do recommend a great lecture by Tom DiLorenzo on ‘Labor Market Superstitions’:
Audio:
http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/DiLorenzo/DiLorenzo-8.mp3
Video:
http://mises.org/multimedia/video/DiLorenzo/8.wmv
April 20th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Also one more book recommendation (I haven’t read but it was reviewed favorably):
http://tinyurl.com/democfail
April 20th, 2009 at 10:20 am
A speech from the RBA re- causes of GFC, given last Friday:
http://www.rba.gov.au/Speeches/2009/sp_so_150409.html?printable=true
Something for you all to criticise!
April 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I follow her right up until the part where Australia is so much better off than the rest of the world.
Her graph shows house prices trebling in 10 years in Australia – but this is somehow OK, because “real average weekly earnings” increased by 30% in the same period, so prices only doubled. I am unsure of the source of the AWEs but it seems like an enormous jump in income.
The second assumption that she makes is that the US crisis is caused by oversupply – a sound belief if you are a neoclassical economist. But even if that were true, it ignores all of the countries where supply remained unchanged, and the bubble expanded and collapsed like any other bubble.
The bizarre thing is that you don’t need to have a ‘theoretical framework’ on the crisis, you can just look at what is really happening in the UK, Ireland, Italy, all of Eastern Europe…
Once again, Australia is different (we have marsupials after all).
April 20th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Thanks HPT
I notice that they have changed the name of the department from “System Stability” to “Financial Stability”, perhaps they realised that they have no idea about what a “system” is.
One thing I notice is that they do not admit that the levels of debt had to eventually reach unsustainable proportions, they attribute everything to “inherent cycle of human psychology around risk perceptions”. They blame this behaviour while that is a factor which is and has always been relevant and obvious.
“Gearged” investments are also mentioned as if these RBA people have only just waken up to this affect.
The real problem can be deduced from the superficial nature of this paper. They only describe three individual factors. They give no indication that are aware that these factors are just parts of a system, a system which they have never bothered to try to understand.
Their performance has been very bad to egregious.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
More “green shoots” for us all to look forward to;
http://www.fnarena.com/index2.cfm?type=dsp_newsitem&n=A7464DA0-1871-E587-E12B3D90A458B0D9
LEADING INDEX SPELLS GLOOMY OUTLOOK FOR AUSTRALIA.
The index which look ahead by 1-3 quarters is down to -5.1%. Economists are “disturbed” by the magnitude and speed of the decline, surpassing the whole of the 12 mth 1990 decline of 3.4% in just 2 qtrs- and still heading lower. The good news is that Westpac has decided to defy it’s own indicator because of the fiscal stimulous being applied. What it goes on to say though is that in 1990 the world economy bottomed out at positive 1.5%, while now they forecast -1% global growth. The IMF estimate is -3%+.
Talk about a disconnect. Here we see spin at it’s best- Westpac’s Evans has his grubby hands all over this. He is constantly being “surprised” by how bad the numbers are.
Clearly, MUCH faith is being placed in the various global stimuli being rolled out. When it does not deliver on results later this year there will be much disappointment.
….and today we see Aust Prices go “unexpectedly” negative at -.4% , officially bringing in deflation into our numbers, a lagging index btw. Evans was surprised yet again.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
On another note, I see the weekend AFR front page highlighting 4 days week option being preferable to layoffs, and how industry is adopting this now in a widespread manner.
As I recall, even Keynes disdained this as an option for restraining economic decline. This implies longterm reprcussions for Aust GDP.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Thanks for link HTP.
Terrific that the RBA can go through what everybody else is doing wrong, and what we are doing right (I feel so much berrer now).
Strange that once again un-employment doesnt get a look in for now and down the road except to say on the US-
(‘The extraordinary thing was that, unlike in every other housing bust, arrears rates increased significantly before the labour market started to weaken.’)
Maybe this should be supplied to all employees losing their jobs and people who are falling behind on their home loans – very comforting.
Terrific news also on the change of name for the Financial (In)Stability Forum – should make a big difference now that it is a board.
Um question – why is it now that risk and high leverage is not so good rather than then – oh that’s right, it wasn’t here – it was OS and thus someone elses problem.
Keep up the good work RBA.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Australia’s Producer Prices Unexpectedly Decline 0.4%
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aeEcHPsuHWbw&refer=australia
“The median estimate of 15 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was for a 0.6 percent gain. ” (That is a 1% MISS!)
April 20th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Steve
Yesterday I caught the end of a TV promo and a glimpse of you. But I’m unsure what channel it was
Is it 4 Corners tonight? Or another programme? Did anyone else see the promo?
April 20th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Yes Effit, it was for 7.30 report (ABC t.v.) “this week” (week beginning 20/4)I think it has to do with council’s ’speculation’ in U.S.(I think).
April 20th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Thanks tommyt
I’ll make sure I watch 7:30 Report all this week.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Commonwealth Bank fixed rates up today! Looks like Steve’s claims of podcast 6 are eventuating. Increasing interest rates and unemployment, a witches brew of economic news.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
via naked capitalism is this link to animal spirits post on recent imf report re debt deflation and debt to gdp ratio.
i’m posting the link here in the hopes that steve will weigh in with his analysis of the report (imf report links are at the bottom of the post).
http://animalspiritspage.blogspot.com/2009/04/america-close-to-tipping-point.html
April 20th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Steve and others,
Whats happening? Citigroup, Bank of America reporting profits already? Is this based on taxpayers money and manipulation of asset prices where they are not valuing the assets at current deflated values but former values? Also whats up with CBA increasing fixed term interest rates? I assume other banks will follow and this will entice hoards of first home buyers to take risks in fear of further rate rises? what is happening here? Seems like your critics are claiming victory by their buy now and fix and it is not to far away where banks will hike up interest rates dis regardless of RBA rates?
April 20th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Somehow all this madness is all working? or they are trying to get the social mood upbeat in hopes that this is just a crisis in confidence when it is the overconfidence that got us in this mess? Im amazed!