Sorry for the delay, but I thought I’d share this as relevant to the topic …

My state senator (Maria Cantwell of Washington state), was part of the subcommittee that originally approved Ben Bernanke’s reconfirmation vote to proceed. The day before the final confirmation vote (the full US Senate), I forwarded her your blog about Bernanke. She changed her vote to No for the final reconfirmation, which unfortunately, Bernanke still won. Of course, I don’t know that her change in heart was a result of your analysis, but it may have been. I do get replies to some of my emails to members of Congress, so they are getting read.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×7595604

Thanks.

Thank you. I have actually visited Ukraine once–about 3 years ago–but as a tourist to Kiev rather than an academic.

Your blog is very educational, there are about two of free analytics of your level that share so precious information. Your lectures and models are very good even for short-term analyzes (all kinds of financial markets).
As for Ukraine I got lucky to know your name for the only one professor in the whole University (as for Ukraine it is the biggest and the most known). As for our economic faculty from your lections I found more from the whole 6 years of study.

Thank you again

I believe the Ring of Fire post and graphic by PIMCO which has been widely quoted recently is a tribute to your work. Thgey were all 3 years behind you but they are getting there:
http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2010/February+2010+Gross+Ring+of+Fire.htm

The recent Demographia survey also supports the work you have done about the dangers to purchasers of homes in Australia where the median prices are 4 of the 5 highest in the Anglo world in terms of multiples of median income:
http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf
Sydney is 9 times, Miami is 4.4 and Atlanta is 2.1 and the long term average is around 3 times.

Keep up the great work

Cheers

However, recently when talking to a friend about this his reply was: “if you implemented that scheme in 1900 then a block of land in Sydney would be worth about $400 now”. His point was that this scheme could lead to very inefficient uses of land. He suggested a scheme like this had been implemented in Paris with just such inefficient effects. People refused to sell land because they knew they would never get the true value back in the sale price.

I am not sure if Schumacher had a answer to this problem in relation to his proposal. I note however, that the same problem arises if you have a 100% capital gains tax, implying that any capital gains tax (CGT) would need to be somewhat less than this to avoid these effects.

Personally I still prefer the CGT to land taxes as proposed by Prosper Australia as it allows those on fixed, low (or even zero) incomes to survive (who own land, and I believe everyone should have the right to own enough land sufficient to ensure their own survival. Providing such a basic provision for every human should be the ultimate purpose of society.) And to survive without being sent into bankruptcy by unpaid land taxes and then cast out dependent on the state (I am sure most states love having as many dependent people as possible and if we can reduce these tendencies by a basis in law, then all the better for our collective indepedence). Prosper argue that everyone should have to contribute to society, particularly for shared resources such as roads etc. However, historically traditional societies have always had people who do not contribute (I have a good reference for this if anyone is interested, I cannot quite recall all the details at present however, I would have to search through my archives). These people are not explicitly punished (in these earlier societies) economically or legally by insisting that that they contribute or be deprived of sharing in social goods and services (or locked in debtors prisons, or whatever). They instead find they suffer from low status and have difficulty finding partners. Therefore such dis-incentives do not need to be economic and do need to be enforced by some ultimate authority, they will be provided by the very dynamics of the society all people depend on. These are my objections to the Prosper proposals – they rely on a violent state to enforce participation. Exactly the sort of approach that has lead to all the problems we have today.

For those you are interested, The Schumacher society have a scheme running in relation to land, I have no comment on it at this stage however:

http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/clts.html

Thanks Chris, I certainly hope you’re right.

Cheers, Steve

I just signed up.

I stumbled across your site a few months ago looking for answers (probably like everybody else here), and as somebody with absolutely no economic literacy, you’ve provided a fantastic framework for me to understand (or at least begin to) the impact of debt in todays society, and in lay terms a logical explanation as to why the things have unfolded the way they have and why the economy is in its current state.

As a result of this my knowledge base has increased expontentially, and as knowledge is power I am now more in control of my financial destiny than before, and feel more confident in my ability to make astute finanical decisions going forward.

I understand that nothing just ‘happens’, although you would think that is the case going by reading most of the rubbish found in the MSM, which is often contradictory – they swing with the breeze – and barely ever scratches the service (‘consumer confidence’ya ya ya…..’driven by fundamentals’ ya ya ya). Generally a whole lot of meaningless sound bites; enough to ‘bore’ (or confuse) the lay person to sleep before they can dig a little deeper. But perhaps that is the plan!

As such, my experience here is analogous to an ‘economic enlightenment’, as I feel like I can see where I couldn’t see before…reminds me of the quote ‘true discovery lies not in seing new things but in seeing with new eyes’. Your theories are accessible, make sense, and resonate with me.

I also enjoy reading the other bloggers in response to your posts (as with all topics, some stuff I take on board, some I don’t – and most goes well over my head, but I am learning!) and I’m sure there are thousands of others like me that ‘lurk’ here reguarly, and in addition to the regular contributors, appreciate the fantastic work that you do.

Keep up the great work – the masses ARE starting to wake up and your message IS getting across.

Cheers,
Chris

I recently reread Clive Hamilton’s and Richard Denniss’s ‘Affluenza’. It seems to me this work has much to say about excessive debt.

I put this view to participants here. China has revolutionised the world of manufacturing. Globalisation has seen manufacturing jobs move to China on a massive scale. Western economies have partly countered these jobs losses by developing a consumption driven service economy powered by every increasing debt financed by developing economy savings.

The next phase will be India’s march into the service economy. Technology will soon see India taking service jobs away from the West in much the same way as China with manufacturing.

Globalisation will ultimately eroded the living standards of the West unless the Western economies acquire the capacity to run the occasional trade surplus with India and China. As the general thesis in Affuenza points out, it is not how wealthy you are that matters, it is what you neighbour makes that really counts!