I’m happy to admit that it’s very hard to hold a bear perspective, when all about there appear to be “green shoots”, yet according to my body clock it’s still hibernation time.
There are, however, four factors that keep me in my lair:
- Good History;
- Bad Economic Theory;
- Good Economic History; and
- Good Economic Theory
I’ll cover the last three in subsequent posts; here I rely on Mark Twain’s brilliant observation that “history doesn’t repeat, but it sure does rhyme”. A US blogger is giving us very good evidence of that with the blog News From 1930, in which every day he summarises the news from the same day of the year in 1930. As Alan Kohler also remarked recently, “one thing that comes through loud and clear is that they didn’t know they were having a Depression” (to which I would add the word “either”).
The entry for this day in 1930 (August 19th—a Tuesday as it happens) certainly make that obvious. Change the company names (and those of politicians and market pundits) to their modern equivalents, and you’d be hard pressed to decide whether you were reading a paper from 1930, or 2009.
Some excerpts:
- “Seasoned common stocks” are now selling to yield about 1.5% above commercial paper rate (3%). In 33 year history of the Dow Jones averages, stocks without exception have been profitable long-term investments when average yield was 1% or more above the commercial paper rate.
- R. Babson (the economist who predicted the 1929 stock market crash, and inspired Irving Fisher to make his “bull”statement that “Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau” days before Black Monday wiped 13% off the market) … notes commodity production has declined about 30% vs. 10% decline in consumption; predicts shortages soon, restarting of production to supply demand. Doesn’t yet recommend buying stocks, but feels “time is approaching when buying opportunities may appear.”
- Harvey Firestone, Pres. Firestone Tire & Rubber, states America is on eve of greater prosperity than past 10 years. Expresses belief in Ford’s statement there will soon be work for everybody. Says company has met depression by cutting overhead and lowering prices; plant now running night and day, 6 days a week.
- Economic news and individual company reports:
- Fed. Reserve member banks report “all other” (commercial) loans up $9M to $8.481B in week ended Aug. 13; loans on securities down $58M to $8.376M.
- S.W. Straus report of building permits issued for July in 589 leading cities and towns finds volume of planned construction was $187.6M vs. $184.7M in June; reverse of usual seasonal decline, but down 36% from 1929.
- Labor Dept. reports retail food prices down 2.5% in month ended July 15, and 9% in year.
- Coca Cola seen taking advantage of low sugar prices by buying a year’s supply in advance. Has enjoyed increased sales every year since 1922.
- R.J. Reynolds selling about 49, earned $3.22/share in 1929, expected to earn more in 1930, yield 6.1% based on $3 annual div.
- Several cigar stocks selling at yields over 9%, including General Cigar (9.3%), Congress Cigar (16%), Consolidated Cigar (13.8%).
- Companies reporting decent earnings: Drug Inc., General American Tank Car, Fox Film, Fifth Avenue Bus Corp, International Salt.”
The general tenor of reports for August 1930 has “recovery” written all over it—though there is “bad”, or at least puzzling news amidst the good, such as the fall in prices.
It appears that, rather like an alcoholic who is an alcoholic long before she takes the pledge at an AA meeting, the public and commentators in 1930 didn’t realise that a Depression has started.
I feel the same way now—and the economic historians Barry Eichengreen and Kevin O’Rourke provide empirical support for this in their “Tale of Two Depressions”.
Of course, there’s more than merely rhyming history to our current situation: as Rudd pointed out in his recent essay, government fiscal stimuli is pumping something close to 18 percent of additional demand into the global economy over 3 years. So there are concerted efforts to ensure that 2009 plays a different tune to 1930. I’ll discuss whether our modern economic musicians are up to the task of composing a different economic concerto in the next installment.






August 20th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
I’m looking forward to the subsequent posts Steve. I found a good quote site for you as well:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Twain#History
It is interesting how everyone has now forgotten the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. I cannot see how we can simply sail out of this like a yacht into the sunset.
I won’t consider buying a house until interest rates are few percent higher and unemployment has also risen a couple of percent as this will be when people have to sell and the bargains may finally start to appear, given enough time.
August 20th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“I won’t consider buying a house until interest rates are few percent higher and unemployment has also risen a couple of percent as this will be when people have to sell and the bargains may finally start to appear, given enough time.”
Don’t bother. A far better indicator is the “Stapledon Index”, supplemented with the ABS House Price Index data. Once the housing deflation results in prices collapsing back to long-run averages, or even waiting after a possible over-shoot, then that would be the best time to buy. Buying at the peak or near peak of a massive housing bubble is financial insanity.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:36 am
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/economy/initial_jobless_claims/?postversion=2009082010
“The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance rose last week, the government said Thursday, surprising economists.”
Well I’m not surprised…
August 21st, 2009 at 2:39 am
Actually, that seems like a fun term to search for;
http://news.google.com.au/news?q=“surprising+economists”
August 21st, 2009 at 4:53 am
For most people, being a bear, or short, is harder than being a bull, or long, even when the consensus is with you. You kind of feel that you are promoting pessimism.
When the consensus is against you, you feel like a doom-saying lunatic. Oh, well, someone has to play the part.
It’s interesting how many of the bears who called the downturn have turned almost bullish, a la Babson in 1930. I saw Shiller on Bloomberg recently, and he actually recommended stocks, in a halfhearted sort of way. Six months ago, he would note that is preferred valuation, cyclically-adjusted P/E, showed the market well above the lows seen in bear market bottoms.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:22 am
Hi Phillip!
What if house prices deflate by say 40%,…. over say 15 years (a Japan stagnation scenario)? Would that be practical to wait 15 years?
August 21st, 2009 at 11:30 am
Contrarian, if you are going to lose money on the asset value, why buy? just throw your money at an “investor” and rent instead.
Now I know that most people believe the market is a confidence game, that if we just have a little more optimism then things will improve. And certainly some kinds of negative press can startle the market like firing a gun in a herd of cattle. But when you’re in a war zone with bullets flying everywhere, sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “la la la I’m not listening” doesn’t really help the situation.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Hi all,
For those of us who appreciate a lay persons explanation of why debt levels are unsustainable there is a fantastic cartoon which spells it out plainly. It is lengthy but even if you skip through pieces you can see how worthwhile it is for the average person.
Anyone seen it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doYllBk5No&feature=PlayList&p=879A14495D29C64F&index=0
August 21st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Austen, facinating, and a great explanation of how it all works…. Many thanks.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Contrarian Investors’ Journal,
Buying an asset, in this case residential property, is lunacy whether it takes 5 or 15 years for the Australian housing bubble to fully deflate. Clearly the best option is to rent. It would be better if the deflation occurs sooner and more quickly than later and longer but we have no control over that.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Wouldn’t it depend on how much rents are? At the moment it is not unusual for the rent of a house to outweigh the loan repayments, hence at least at the end of 15 years you’d have a house (worth half the value) but renters would have nothing. If we go into a Japanese type scenario you’d also expect interest rates to follow – ie near or at zero – so loan repayments would only come down.
Obviously, the best option would be to stay at home with the parents!
August 21st, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Hi Steve
It really is hard being a bear and at least twice a day a think about those that lived among flat-earthers, how they must have struggled seeing the delicate, but still obvious signs of curvature without having the technology to “prove” what they knew.
From my discussions with economists and analysts I have learnt that to them the Great Depression and Japan’s deflation do not constiute a proof that hyper-debt is growth limiting-there is always a straight line between two points- those incidents prove nothing.
Today we have access to gigabytes of data but the vested interests of commercial media and financial institutions drowns out the important historical bits.
I have never been into conspiracy theories, and I’m not saying this is one, but the politicians, financiers and media barons all know exactly where their interests lie and how to go about protecting it, while Kevin Rudd likes to hedge his bets while blowing taxpayer money. You also cannot underestimate the momentum of consumer spending habits either.
Nevertheless, 20 years in currency markets, trading one of the most volatile currencies in the world has taught me that the market is quite a leveller, if it doesn’t always seem that way, and extremes are corrected, usually in the extreme too.
There is a fair amount of discussion about the demise of the effecient markets hypothesis, and I really am not a proponent of it, but I do believe the market will eventually have its way with the US, Wall Street, Goldman Sachs and the other punters that thrive on gearing.
The hubris displayed by Goldman with its recent bonus payouts is mind boggling and to me shows a moral, as well as a financial lesson needs to be dished out to the world, because Goldman really has given capitalism a bad name.
The inevitable depression will then pretty much have setup that third key data point that will then prove that a debt/GDP ratio of say 300 per cent is like flying a jet liner until its run out of fuel-perhaps the pilot can glide it into land but mostly likely it will crash into the sea or a mountain of debt in front of the runway!
Your warnings will be proven right…eventually. Even now if you had forecast an earthquake in time and saved thousands of lives you would have been a hero, instead you are a DR Doom like Nouriel Roubini! What a whacked world we live in!
I must say the assured bravado, feigned indigance and pseudo example of goods price trends in the video of Guy Debelle would have been hilarious if he didn’t work at the RBA.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Brett said:
“At the moment it is not unusual for the rent of a house to outweigh the loan repayments”
I’m not sure where that is occurring, but in my area (Mawson Lakes, SA) the rents are less than half (closer to 1/3) of what the repayments would be (for an 80% LVR mortgage).
Rent in a devaluing property market is the cost you pay to live somewhere unencumbered by a depreciating asset and avoids the risk of ending up with negative equity.
I think this is correct, any comments?
August 21st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Brett said:
“At the moment it is not unusual for the rent of a house to outweigh the loan repayments”
I’m not sure where that is occurring, but in my area (Mawson Lakes, SA) the rents are less than half (closer to 1/3) of what the repayments would be (for an 80% LVR mortgage).
Rent in a devaluing property market is the cost you pay to live somewhere unencumbered by a depreciating asset and avoids the risk of ending up with negative equity.
I think this is correct, any comments?
August 21st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
brett123,
The staying at home option you mention is what is occurring in the US and UK at the moment, essentially a ‘people compression’. Over the last decade, easy credit has resulted in a housing boom and ‘expansion’ where the ratio of people per house has fallen.
As Bubblepedia points out, Australia has experienced housing over-construction since 1911. I’ve looked at the ABS data from 1910 and on average, there were 5.1 people per private dwelling. Today, there is 2.7.
The best course of action is to rent until the Stapledon House Price Index shows that property prices have returned to long-run averages (or over-shot) and then to buy. Not only will properties be far cheaper relative to today’s bubble prices, the RBA may have to implement 0% rates (a few % more for a mortgage).
Or, if Steve is right, a debt-moratorium takes place, getting a mortgage on a property only for the government to cut it substantially or to forgive all debts entirely which means a mostly free property! Timing it would be difficult, though.
Due to the BOJ implementing 0.1% rates, resulting in the yen carry trade, I wonder if there will be a AUD carry trade?
August 21st, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Phillip:
We are playing the devil’s advocate here…
From an investors’ point of view, waiting 15 years is no problem. An investor can always divert his/her capital to other asset class while waiting indefinitely for house prices to deflate back to the historic mean (or below).
That can be a problem for young people who need a roof to stay. What we are contemplating is a scenario that house prices may fall substantially in real terms, but deflate in a disappointingly slow fuse in nominal terms.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Hi Phillip!
In Steve’s latest talk at the ASX, he said he’s very confident that his advice for debt-moratorium will not happen any time soon.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Hi Phillip!
In practice, we believe it is unlikely that RBA will go to ZIRP. As the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) latest annual report said, if there is a currency run (and Australia is a vulnerable nation in that regard), the RBA will be forced to raise interest rates regardless of what’s happening domestically.
Remember, Australia is a small fry nation with large foreign debt and a currency that is not the reserve currency. We may not have the luxury of playing with ZIRP.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:59 pm
It’s been in the news a bit lately, here’s one article talking about it: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25854201-36418,00.html
As long as you have a secure job and haven’t over extended yourself buying may still be better than renting.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Cheers Brett,
not suprisingly according to RP Data on behalf of the Commonwealth Bank it’s a great time to buy, get in quick!
August 21st, 2009 at 5:46 pm
The catch in this “buy a property” advice is that they don’t take capital losses into account.
However when I did my own math the benefits of renting for me are not clear in 2 out of 3 possible scenarios. My house is cheap and rents are high in the area where I live. I don’t want to move elsewhere due to family reasons. I can afford to pay a small premium for not having to deal with real estate agents or landlords. If there is inflation due to currency devaluation or moderate deflation with house prices sliding by less than 30% in real prices (I believe in my suburb it is the worst case scenario) it doesn’t make much difference whether I sell or I’m better off with the house. If the prices collapse dramatically in a short period of time – of course I lose (but not too much since the house is cheap).
My advice is to simply simulate all the realistic scenarios and make an informed decision rather than follow anybody. Hedging is an option – consider indices (there are options available) or metals.
August 21st, 2009 at 6:01 pm
DrBob you can do better than that..
AK – it’s pretty much the same in my suburb. I bought a few years ago (a relatively good buy) and rents have risen and loan repayments have dropped. At the moment, my repayments are about the same as the guy next door renting.
August 21st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
hi contrarian,
forgive me if i’m wrong, but i thought the whole point of the floating exchange and the rba’s role within it was to relieve the burden, within reason offcourse, of the rba having to defend the currency.
i think these days the rba seems much more concerned about defending an interest rate target than defending the currency.
August 21st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Hi mahaish!
Let us quote page 114 of the 79th BIS annual report:
August 21st, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Sure there are some similarities between the comments from 1930 to those of today, but how deep really is the comparison? Apart from governments throwing everything at the crisis, whereas in 1930 they didn’t know what was hitting them, there are many other differences. Not a small factor was that Europe was still weak following the devastation from WWI. We didn’t have rapidly emerging economies like that of China. Also the US economy was centered around only a few industries such as automobiles and radios. There wasn’t a strong middle class with spending power, there wasn’t a commitment to free trade (in contrast governments put up tarriffs).
August 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
hi brett123,
couldnt agree with you more re goldmans,
governments enabling bad corporate behavior,
unfortunately nothing much has changed in US politics for the last 200 years,
its amazing to witness the hold that bankers have had on their supposed political masters, over that period, jp morgan being one of the prominant protagonists.
i’m not so optimistic that market forces will ultimately determine their fate, given the 200 year history of state intervention to protect bankers from the riggures of market forces
what the likes of goldman’s dont realise is that eventually there will be a political counter reaction against them, and that will be their undoing, when the political demagogs come out of the wood work seeking revenge!
August 21st, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I don’t think it’s too hard to be a bear. It’s pretty reasonable to maintain that the future is very problematic due to debt overhang and demographics and then add into the mix any other issues such as peak oil that you happen to be afraid of.
What’s difficult is predicting exactly how the problems will be manifested and what the right course of individual and policy action might be to mitigate them. Further, timing as always is difficult.
So being a ‘we’re going to have imminent deflation’ type bear, or a hyperinflationary bear is harder than being a more general kind of bear.
I’m a bear, and my best guess is that long term the future is very stagflationary, however I remain open to long term deflationary possibilities too. However, if the can has been kicked another 2 years down the line by the authorities then that’s fine by me – I have more time to prepare. No-one should wish for a deflationary depression whether they have predicted it or not.
So be a bear, understand the dynamics and variables as far as possible, consider alternative outcomes, avoid making predictions and stay nimble, and above all don’t wish for collapse. That way lies madness.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:04 pm
sorry brett123, my post about goldmans was meant for gbear
August 21st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
think we are a long long way off from declaring hunting season on bears,
even if governments end up writing some unseamly large cheques to the right people, or they eventually get around to wiping out their banking buddies and re structuring the debts,
we still have an invisible dagger hovering over our heads
that of geo political transition,
the gfc and badly thought through foreign policy in no small way will play its part in the waning of US hegemony and the rise of other economic and political pirates,which is going to make for an interesting future.
i should find myself a proverbial cave and ride out the storm
August 21st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
pjbink,
I think Japan may have been an emerging economy in the 30’s. Also remember they (US AU) did not have the huge levels of debt that we have to day. We the west, US, Aus, were running at about double the 1929 levels in 2008. Remember too the US had a large manufacturing base instead of relying on consumption to keep the country running. Is it good to rely on 70% of your population buying crap to keep the country afloat?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“Is it good to rely on 70% of your population buying crap to keep the country afloat?”
It’s a fine idea as long as people keep buying. If you rely on manufacturing you are relying on someone, somewhere, buying what you make, so I don’t think we should extoll a manufacturing economy too highly, or see it as that different to a consumption economy, when considered in the context of the global economy. Demand is key in either case.
Someone has to be the buyer/spender, whichever way you cut it.
If no-one is spending, then how can an economy possibly stay afloat? An economy that is ‘floating’, or shall we say ‘inflated’ is one in which the veolocity of money results in more or less full employment. A collapsing economy is one in which the veolocity of money drops well below that which is needed to sustain employment levels.
An economy which is contracting in absolute terms but in which veolocity of money increases to compensate will be OK. That’s what inflation is for.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:26 pm
The spending is fine. ….provided it’s not with someone else’s money. Just what do you plan to trade with in a full on consumption economy.
I’m not extolling the virtues just pointing out that the US was a manufacturing economy which it isn’t to the same extent now.
When things get tough the first thing to get ditched is the crap, which in a consumption economy has a lot of jobs connected to it. Consequently when people don’t have jobs and have large debts they tend not to spend, which is precisely what is happening at the moment.
It will be interesting to see who comes out of this first the US or Germany. One high debt big importer. I lower debt big exporter.
Frankly I get fed up with the lets keep feeding the economy attitude, time people realised this is a finite world full of finite resources.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
A consumption economy could for example be based upon the provision and consumption of healthcare, oldage care, entertainment, communications, domestic energy and foodstuffs. None of this qualifies, IMO as crap. In fact these sectors are those most likely to see sustained demand in the future, unlike the autos, consumer electronics and assorted crap produced by the germans and asians.
Therefore it is my contention that a service/consumption economy (mostly domestic with limited import/export) is the future – not manufacturing, for reasons of shifting cultural attitudes, energy costs and demographics. Happily, this places a floor under wage arbitrage, as demand shifts to items that must be provided locally.
The reason that recently all this manufactured crap has been bought with credit is because otherwise demand for it would have died 20 years ago, so the capitalist classes had an incentive to extend cheap credit for consumption. The spending (of real income) has been dying away for decades – due in no small part to the huge increase in saving for old age (which began in the 60s in earnest and has only recently been reversed in certain western economies). While savings rates have declined in western economies over the last decade, worldwide I think the trend remains upwards, which goes some way to explaining why during the same period interest rates have been continually declining.
This secular worldwide increase in demand for saving can also be linked to the rise in home ownership over the same period – since mortgage debtors present a vehicle for savings that renters would not provide and which cannot be accomodated entirely by existign investment opportunities.
It’s interesting to question whether the increase in debt-to-gdp is as bad as it seems, if much of that increase is due to an increase in home-ownership. While monthly rental and mortgage payments remain aligned and affordable (i.e. prior to 2002), it seems to me twe should remove that portion of the debt which is related to sustainable home mortgage arrangements when looking at increase in debt2gdp over the last 30 years.
I’m sure we’d see a bubble in debt post 2000, but by doing the above much of the run up in debt levels over the last 30 years could be shown to be less malign than generally assumed.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:27 am
Parts of your first Paragraph I’m inclined to agree with. The health care and communications are going to need the electronics though. When I say manufacturing, I’m not just saying cars and Ipods, what about solar panels, wind turbines. Whilst I think what you propose in para 2 has merit I’m not so sure we could exist in that much isolation. In many ways we have become a ‘we have to have it now mob’ so if strawberries aren’t in season in AUS we just shove them on a flight from the US or the EU. Then send off a boat load of Iron ore to compensate.
I’m not so sure about the mortgage debt…saving…. or perhaps ’speculation’ A lot of this debt was based on the greater fool than I principle.
Prior to 2002 ….IMO house prices have been escalating unsustainably since the late 70s
Not sure about your last paragraph…..have you had a good look at Steve’s charts.
In conclusion if the whole system does collapse and some one can come up with something better than the current system I’ll be extremely happy. I’d rather pay more tax and have someone work 1 day a week producing something of ‘value’ that’s not just burning up valuable resources and energy than working 5 days and making crap. What the 10 billion of us are going to do in 2060 has me completely stumped. Finally I no longer wish to walk down a 30 metre supermarket row stuffed with 500 different types of dunny paper just to wipe my ***e on too much longer.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:53 am
clive, see this chart:
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-average-house-price-to-earnings-ratio.php
It shows house prices relative to earnings have oscillated fairly predictably around about 3.5X since the 50’s. During this time, or least from the 60’s debt levels in the economy have been rising steadily before going balistic in the last decade. I have seen steve’s charts and what I don’t think they tell us is what part of the debt increase is due to an increase in home ownership over time, and what part of the increase is due to unproductive borrowing for consumption/demand sustenance purposes. There’s a lot of myths about debt (i.e. its a bad thing in and of itself), and I think we need to separate some variables.
Regarding solar panels, turbines etc, these are not consumption goods. They are complex infrastructure items and as such probably need to be supported by a global supply chain, and various parts of that supply chain will end up clustering here or there. However, in theory all these items can be produced entirely domestically within most advanced economies, and as such one cannot base an economy on exporting them without a-priori knowledge of how the global supply chain/clustering is going to condense. The only sustainable path to creating a healthy economy now is to ensure that domestic demand is balanced and supported as far as possible by domestic supply – which means less factories, and more doctors, nurses, carers and infrastructure services. Currently we have too many industrial/consumer production jobs and too few vital services, as a result prices are all out of whack in both sectors.
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 am
Excellent video Austen (way up top), i am a financial lay person and found it very rewarding and informative. And interesting context about the reduction of the available money supply given today’s atmosphere of non-spending and de-leveraging. This has helped me to fully understand Steve’s ideas (forgive me for any misinterpretations) on deflation.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:21 am
People may be interested in the following short submission I made to the Commonwealth Commercialisation Institute http://www.innovation.gov.au/Section/Innovation/Pages/CommonwealthCommercialisationInstitute.aspx who were looking for ideas on how best to spend money to support innovation. The proposal is a variation on the idea of creating new assets when we create money. If used extensively I believe it will “solve” the problem of debt because it increases the money supply through creating new assets with zero interest loans and for those who have looked at the Austen video it is the second method proposed to fix the system and is in the last video.
Zero Interest Loans for Innovation
Money for innovation is very expensive as you have to pay for it with equity. In my experience it is a minimum of 10 times as expensive as a loan to purchase an existing asset. This, of course, is the opposite to what we want if we want to foster innovation. The reason that money is expensive is that innovation of its nature is risky (but not 10 times as risky). This means that people who invest in risky ventures should get a high return – unless we could get the whole community to share in the risk.
I am currently approaching the banks and other parts of the government with proposals where the whole community can both share the risks and share in the rewards. The name of the proposal is “Zero Interest Loans for XXXXXXX’ where XXXXXXX could be innovation, renewable energy, hospitals, water resources, urban transport, ports, universities, schools, or any way we have of constructing and developing new assets.
The idea is to give everyone in the country the right to take out a zero interest loan for XXXXXXX purposes. The total amount of the zero interest loan would be determined by the government as would XXXXXXXX. People who took up the loans would pay them back from the income from the investment if the investment made a profit. People who did not want to invest could sell their right to investment. There are a variety of ways the loans and spending of loans can be structured. The approach “costs” the government nothing and the risk is shared through the whole population. You can read more at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com and at http://stableproductivemoney.wordpress.com/
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 am
Austen’s video does not tell the whole story. That is, we should be able to have interest on loans and have credit money because there is one thing missing in the analysis. Good investments from loans do generate more money than the loan. That is, as long as the total amount of loans is not much greater than the total amount of money then things will be fine. The problem is the interdependence of the banks. That is, if one bank defaults then the others default because they all owe each other so much money because of the way the system works. We could perhaps overcome this problem if banks could not create money to lend to each other. That is, we ban loans backed by other loans and only allow banks to lend money itself. I think this would have the effect of stopping the spiral in debt.
The other thing that I do not like about many of the critics of the current system (including the video) is to demonise the banks and accuse them of being greedy etc. The banks themselves are not the problem and the people in the banks do not see themselves as being greedy etc. but of fulfilling an essential service – which they are. It is the system that allows them to “earn” money through the manipulation of the financial rules that is the problem. It is my belief – that is going to be tested – that banks want a stable monetary system with zero inflation and that does not require them to take on the risk of the viability of other banks and rely on the ability of those other banks to make good loans.
August 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Ian Verrender seems to be having no trouble http://business.smh.com.au/business/have-we-just-woken-from-a-nightmare-or-are-we-still-asleep-20090821-etrq.html?page=-1 The man deserves a Walkley
The SMH runs opinion from Gittins, Pascoe and Verrender that are all different. Gittins as the respected economics reporter gets it wrong the most. Jessica Irvine who seems to be groomed as his replacement is much more sensible, and better looking as well.
August 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
Hi Steve,
It does sound like you are a bit despondent and hastle. Don’t bail out yet my man, you are doing very well. It’s always difficult to go against the tide especially against the ‘Gordon Gerkos’ of the world. Humanity has this instinctive greed that leads them to the height of their own destruction. Except for this one.. if we lose this fight to a more sustainable and productive economical world, those with children, like us will suffer.
Having watch the video on youtube(Whitlam presentation), I know how Galileo felt when he was pounded by those who believed that our world was the centre of their universe!! It was the Church then, now it is the Central Banks!! Imagine what our systems will be like if the fanatics had won!! I’m so glad you didn’t talk ‘as a third person’ and thanks god for free speech, even if that means swimming against the ignorants(I, too, was a BULL)!!
Ps. I’ll walk half naked with you should you ‘lose’ on the ‘40% down on the housing market’ even with a painful spur on my left heel!!
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Thanks Debt2Death,
As I commented to my girlfriend last night, this pressure does get me down a bit but it doesn’t surprise me–in fact, if it wasn’t happening, I would be somewhat worried. When I called the crisis before it happened, I was in effect the person standing outside throwing stones at the glass house of conventional economic theory and policy. Since I was proven right, in some ways I’m now the one at whom people are casting stones, hoping that my house is also made of glass.
I don’t believe that’s the case of course, but the proof that we’re in a problem that won’t go away won’t become obvious for at least another six months to a year. The stimulus package and the cuts to rates so have been so enormous that the economy is benefiting from a 6%+ legup which has slowed deleveraging–the main force that I expect to do continuing damage from now on.
That’s the point of posting the newsfrom1930 excerpts: when this process begins, the conventional expectation that there will be a “return to normal” prevails (even with the much smaller stimuli back in 1930). It takes years of sustained downward pressure from deleveraging before reality bites.
So in the meantime, those with unrealistic expectations bite me!
Don’t worry though, I have a very thick skin. And, I believe, a house made more of stone than glass.
August 22nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Hi cscoxk,
The way i interpreted the video is that the basic fundamentals of money and the banking system are originally flawed and no matter what rules or regulations you put in place we will always have booms, recessions and depressions. It’s just the nature of the beast. It gives rise to fictional money, that gives rise to fictional ideals on trading economies and affects productivity and integrity and happiness of the general public. It may encourage the population to work harder and speed up the economy and technological advancements but at what cost? What was the point if we are all risking to become mindless slaves, contributing a large portion of our time each week only to end up providing a minimal, if any benefit (lets be honest) to society.
The only way i could see the current system working is by introducing robin hood taxes on unproductive passive investing and forfeiting inheritances to the state and ensuring that the inflationary portion of the money supply created out of interest is distributed evenly back into society. But that would be wishful thinking.
August 22nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm
hi steve,
to paraphrase shakespeare,
this is a problem that time will resolve, not you nor i,
in the meantime we mustnt let “our doubts be our traitors”
my apologies i was in a shakespearian mood,
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
hi contrarian ,
i dont really hve problem with the potential scnenario painted by the BIS,
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
my only point is , that, the RBA might be quite happy to let the currency decline significantly, and use it as a wrecking ball agianst any deflationary forces out there,
only problem is what other casualties it might take along the way
August 22nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
mahaish, the RBA has very little say in what happens to the currency, the flows of currency compared to their reserves are so great that they have no choice but to let the currency fall. They can put in an effort here and there to stabilise things, but if the world decides that they don’t want to lend us money then our currency collapses. We can put up interest rates a bit but then people will stop borrowing and the same result occurs.
The only advantage of a falling dollar is that it makes producing goods here more viable, but as so little Australian manufacturing is tradable it has little short term benefit. The problem as far as deflation is that goods made here are still deflating so people are going to stop buying them.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Steve, you truly are a living legend of these modern times, remember the truth always prevails maybe not always when we would like it too but it it will, and anyway were would all the fun be if everybody agreed with you? its this debt driven economic insanity that makes the whole topic so damn interesting!
Love your work mate!
August 22nd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Does anyone know what happened to Australian property prices during the 1930s?
August 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
no arguement with you on this ken, poor choice of words
what are we the sixth or seventh most traded currency in the world, in a 4 trillion dollar forex market,
your right the rba can fiddle while the currency burns,
as for the internal effects, you would think a lower currency would help stabilise the growth in the debt, but that could be a bad thing if it leads to a contraction in demand and rising unemployment
August 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
actually ken, in the light of what ive just said, im starting to think a lower currency may not be much use at all in preventing a debt deflation,
it might actually lead to the exact opposite, and accelerate it after a temporary inflationary blip,
anyway im not sure about any of this, feel free to enlighten me if you feel so inclined