(Edit: Please note that there is a footnote to this story)
I normally don’t comment on articles about me, since I am aware that now that my views are part of the public debate, I have to take the good with the bad in coverage. I wouldn’t have written this either, were it not for the line “If only his predictions were so reliable” in Jessica Irvine’s piece in today’s SMH “Walking on a wire stretched between stimulus and debt“.
In a newspaper that sees itself as a paper of record, I would have expected a bit of context here–some acknowledgement of the fact that I was calling a serious financial crisis from December 2005, whereas conventional economic forecasters were predicting falling unemployment and rising inflation–rather than a throwaway line like that.
This is the sort of comment that leads a lot of bloggers here to be derogatory about the MSM, because anyone who reads this and nothing else is less well informed than someone who ignores the newspapers and surfs the internet instead. As any reader here would know, it doesn’t take long to come across Professor Dirk Bezemer’s survey “No one saw this coming: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models” ( see also his article on Vox) where I am acknowledged as one of about a dozen economists who did call the GFC before it happened.
As most readers here are aware, I spend a lot of my time defending the mainstream media. Not this time, however, because this time the point is obvious: spend time reading the newspapers, and have less knowledge about the world than you could get from the same time spent surfing the ‘Net.
Footnote
Having said the above, I now have to eat humble pie somewhat, and report that Jessica was quite gracious in our correspondence on this point. She noted that “I had hoped it was clear that although you were the headline act, I was having a dig at all economists for getting things wrong and also expressing some sympathy because forecasting can be a mug’s game (admittedly one that the media feeds off).”
She then quickly arranged to have my comments converted into a Letter to the Editor (click on the link and search for “Keen”):
Not all predictions turned out badly
I must take issue with Jessica Irvine’s throwaway line about me, ”If only his predictions were so reliable” (”Walking on a wire stretched between stimulus and debt”, February 19). I am happy to acknowledge I lost the bet with Rory Robertson, but I would have expected some mention of the fact that I had been predicting a serious financial crisis since December 2005, whereas conventional economic forecasters were predicting falling unemployment and rising inflation.
This sort of comment leads bloggers to be derogatory about the mainstream media, because anyone who reads this and nothing else is less well informed than someone who ignores the newspapers, but surfs the internet.
There it doesn’t take long to come across Professor Dirk Bezemer’s survey ”No one saw this coming”: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models, which acknowledges me as one of about a dozen economists who predicted the global financial crisis.
Steve Keen Surry Hills
So the outcome of this exchange returns me to something that I noted I do frequently in discussions on the blog: defend the “MSM” (mainstream media) against some of the criticism it gets. While some of this is warranted, it’s also obvious that the MSM has played a large role in enabling my non-orthodox views on economics to become widely known. So like most issues in life, the MSM story is not entirely black and white.






February 19th, 2010 at 6:42 am
Amazing how the mainstream didn’t have any idea of the private sector debt and its implications.
Roubini became popular because of this. Unfortunately he still lives in the Gold Standard. However, I think he learned some sectoral balances approach by reading Wynne Godley’s papers. He quotes Godley a lot in his writing about the US external sector deficit.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:32 am
Supply is driven by demand in this case…
February 19th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Perhaps Irvine’s article should be added to the brickbats section.
I find the Internet a much better source of information than the MSM. I often wondered why the MSM is so biased and twisted in its reporting and analysis, until I read the following institutional analysis of market-based media:
Herman, Edward S. and Noam Chomsky. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Pantheon: New York).
February 19th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Greetings All,
If you haven’t already heard, the Fed has started to tighten rates.
Looks like the Biggies were right! Even JP Morgan came out this morning (prior to the Fed decision)stating investors should be long USD and short currencies like the aussie.
Whilst you still can, BUY USD (superquick)
February 19th, 2010 at 11:17 am
I will say one thing. There is no way in the world I will be paying for MSM content on the internet. Why on earth would you pay to have them subject you to the propaganda that meets their business needs (i.e. appeases advertisers) when you have an infinitely higher standard of information at your finger tips for free (or if paid subscription, again higher quality, and more targetted, and more objective.)
The media barons are in a catch 22 – but present indications are that they are choosing the wrong path.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:35 am
I think there will be more and more journalists all having their nibble at this story. I think the trick might be to get the attention of the actual bet and prediction so that the real message of this walk could be heard. (whatever that may be)
February 19th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Even if this article didn’t intent to lampoon Steve, it seems a bit sloppy (like much of what passes for professional journalism today – the journalism discipline is not much better than economics in this sense). I think sucessfully combining humour with serious reporting probably requires a fair bit of talent and sensitivity and considerable more care than this article was given.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
TITINT
I tend to agree – though fully understand Steve’s objection to that line.
When we released the press release about the Australia Day brochure drops in Rudd’s electorate, not one MSM outlet ran with the story. And it was like it just went into a black hole.
Then another contributor at Bubblepedia sent me a link to this article – http://www.hotspotting.com.au/index.php?act=viewArticle&productId=1919 (a guy reporting to provide “Finding Tomorrow’s HOT Property Locations Today”)
I could not care in the least that he called us a lunatic fringe – it was a good laugh, and best of all at least somebody told others about the brochure! I really understood the saying “any publicity is good publicity, and I thought what a good bloke to do that for us
(and I’m happy to reciprocate here by publicising his site
)
What’s more, anybody looking at that site with half a mind to be objective might care to find the brochure – which could be done quickly through the internet – at which point they would quickly see that it is not a lunatic fringe calling our housing market The Greatest Bubble in History, but none other than Prof Ross Garnaut (who has a very high profile) as well as our Prof. Keen. And if they then care to delve a little further and examine the websites listed (including this one) – and I want nothing more than for as many Aussies to read and listen to the debate, and think for themselves – they can make up their own minds.
So, I agree, the more publicity the more people will at least be presented with the opportunity to read a different view – and those less blinkered will take that opportunity.
It is just a shame that she saw fit to write that line.
But I think the really comical part of it is the comment attributed to Red Rooster – and I managed to get a comment up pointing to it…
February 19th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Hi Steve and all of the Debtwatchers,
A little moral support from someone who “walked the walk”.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mohandas Gandhi.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I haven’t bought a newspaper in over five years – and I only read the Fin Review because it was free at my last work. I sometimes get the Weekend version, but only because I like how they collate all the option prices and to get a contrarian view from the fund managers – i.e. sell the stocks they support and buy the ones they dont mention.
Taleb was right and Steve has confirmed this – you learn more by not reading the MSM and doing nothing.
Even Alan Kohler (who I admire greatly, and am a big fan of Business Spectator, which is MILES ahead of any MSM business/finance “journalism) as said that he wished investors wouldn’t watch his nightly ABC finance spot – or if they do, just turn the volume down and ignore the daily moving of the market.
The article was completely unfair, just like Christopher Joye’s latest piece suggesting that Steve didn’t even predict the GFC and that he has no right to go against the “eminent economists” of Bernanke, Friedman and JMK, who explained the Great Depression nicely, thank you very much.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
h4a,
just some obvious things which have already being discussed proven by the article you posted:
’70% of households own their homes and have a strong interest in having their values grow steadily’
With these kind of numbers this democracy will do and has been doing everything to support prices.
and the following is a load of bs
‘a significant proportion of remaining households are renters by choice’
In terms of system and price collapse the lesson from the GFC for both sides of the debate is that governments will now do everything they can to maintain stability and the power of this cannot be underestimated. Greece is the most recent example.
February 19th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
BTW everyone, Jessica sent me a rather nice note in reply to my email to her, and it may well result in a feature in the SMH–certainly a letter to the Editor at least. So all’s well that ends well, as the Bard put it.
February 19th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Steve’s walk was always inevitable – whilst – he may understand debt he does not understand or analyse Australian and in particular Sydney housing markets. Let me point out some salient facts as to why he was always going to be wrong
Every 1% increase in interest rates represents about a 6% increase in repayments – With prices stable In Sydney since the trough in September 2002 until mid 2008 the combination of flat prices, rising incomes and lower interest rates mean’t in fact housing affordability increased by between 25% and 40% depending on the income growth of the household concerned
Of home owners (about 68% of all households) nearly 40% now own their own home outright so their capacity to absorb further debt is significant.
The average loan to valuation ratio (that is the debt outstanding to the current price or value of the house) for households with mortgages is around about 65% to 70% so this means prices would need very significantly before a large number of households would be ‘under water’.
The percentage of low doc, no doc and prime loans made in Australia represents less than 5% of all mortgages.
Only about 9% of housing transactions are represented by first home buyers in terms of market movements they simply don’t rate except in suburbs where first home owners are concentrated. Commentary about the withdrawal of the first home owners bonus affecting market prices is ignorant of the importance of this segment
There is a shortage of between 50,000 and 60,000 dwellings in Sydney relative to long term demand.
I am predicting a minimum of 20% price rises in Sydney this year on average as we are approaching the fifth year of an up cycle which typically last 7 years and accelerates by up to 50% in price terms in the last two years.
If I’m wrong I wear a teeshirt with the words – Steve has predicted 7 of the last 5 downturns in the housing market – and walk Drummoyne to the Anzac Bridge.
February 19th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Hi TITINT
As a person always looking for deeper analysis, I am sure you can see many holes in the “70% own” argument. I have stated on several occasions (on this site, and on bubblepedia) the many that I see so will not go over that well worn turf in detail.
It boils down to a view that very close to 100% of the people who do not own will disagree strongly with policy aimed at perpetuating the housing bubble – so that is around 30% of the Australian electorate with very strong views. (Also important is where those people live, read below*.) Then it boils down to how strongly the other 70% feel about it. Now I know from personal experience that older people – ie. the parents of the baby boomers – have very different experiences and perceptions with regards housing than their kids. These, the kids of the Great Depression, have seen the wealth their own kids have accumulated and are accutely aware that it has been at the expense of their grandkids. These people are at the time of life when they are concerned about legacy, and we know that politicians are very attentive to the “grey vote”. Then you have a good slather of people who are genuinely concerned for society and realise that if they simply own a home they live in, they are not really any better off due to the bubble because, if they should sell, they are always going to need a home to live in which they will either buy (also at high prices) or rent.
It is certainly much more finely balanced than those simplistic arguments suggest.
*A good example is the electorate of Griffith – PM Kevin Rudd’s electorate. Fully 43% of households rent. Politicians will recognise that as a potentially very rich vein to tap into. Also, being inner city – with quite a few areas of retirees – an effectively run campaign on the housing bubble and it’s affects on society could yield real results. Like what Labor did to Howard and the Coalition Government, the now in opposition coalition could do to Rudd – esentially double team him. Only problem is that it would be difficult for them to mount the campaign because of their obvious hypocracy – though that has many a politician has been undetered in the past by such minor inconveniences
Better still a well funded, high profile independent – any takers????
February 19th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Steve,
Do you know what Nigel Stapledon’s views are on the property market? We have his analysis in the form of his PhD, but it would be interesting to know his personal views and predictions on this matter.
homes4aussies @ #8,
Terry Ryder’s article with make a fantastic brickbat, it is almost bordering on the abusive (for a journalistic article).
“Lunatic fringe Australians worried about a non-existent house price “bubble” are delivering 20,000 brochures in Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s electorate to mark Australia Day.”
“Predictably, the brochure draws heavily on the views of the Nutty Professor (sorry, that’s Associate Professor) Steve Keen, who famously predicted that house values would fall 40% in 2009 and has been proven spectacularly wrong.”
February 19th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Home4aussies
Can you have your website adress on every one of your posting. 50,000 unique readers come here every month. If you could just get 1% of that.
February 19th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
h4a,
That’s what I was thinking, there must be a lot of public sentiment there to agree with a lot of the things you and Steve says. Tapping into this sentiment is I think a delicate exercise though, you have to be careful not to alienate the public and make it too easy for opposing forces to discredit you.
If I had the answers on how this can be done I would share them with you but I don’t.
February 19th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Margin lending makes a comeback
http://www.smh.com.au/business/margin-lending-makes-a-comeback-20100219-ol47.html
Australia must be different – the appetite for risk has returned but based on nothing. The current reporting season offers no real basis for risk-taking on margin investment. The ASX has drifted around on the same spot for about 4 months.
February 19th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Hi Steve and all,
JUICING THE HOUSING MARKET WITH HOUSE PRICING VELOCITY, part I
I’ve been working with Steve’s multisector computer model. I have set up a simulation for a housing sector along with the rest of the economy, ie, a 2 sector model. Using it, I believe I have discovered a simple way to create a housing bubble by merely juicing the housing price velocity.
The figure shown represents housing demand for a ‘natural market’ ie. no stimulus as well as new housing demand for a stimulated market.
Letting c = H/L, where c is the percentage of homes (and homeowners). H is the number of homes, L is the number of employed households. c is also the percentage of potential sellers, and 1-c is the percentage of potential house buyers. S= c*(1-c) is the number of possible sales transactions. S is a maximum at c=0.5. D =dS/dc = 1-2c is the demand for new houses, D > 0 for c < 0.5 and D 0.5
For a natural market c=0.5 is an equilibrium point. For c 0.5, more sellers than buyers. When c moves beyond 0.5, there is selling pressure. New house building slows until L increases.
For a stimulated market, the demand curve changes to D = 1-2c+stimH where stimH is demand injected by external money, ie government boosting. In the case shown,
stimH = 0.3 so D = 1.3 -2c and demand is in equilibrium at c = 0.65. In a stimulated market like this, there are 65% potential sellers and 35% potential buyers.
February 19th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I think this is an excellent extension of my model Warren. I’d actually be happy to give you a post here to outline it fully. Would you like to do that? That would overcome the problem of only being able to post one figure per comment, etc.
cheers, Steve
February 19th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
There was an article in the West aust newspaper today by Shae Wright economics editor.
He talks about a 250% surge in enquires to mortgage brokers by people wanting 100% home loans, such of which are not available. This is according to the article since the dropping of the first home owners grant.
Its clear that the dropping of the grant combined with the tightning of lending standards requiring borrowers to pony up a deposit is starting to have some bite and i believe to be one of the first indicators that steve has talked about leading to a long term degredation in housing prices. Note i said long term.
The tighter lending standards means people can borrow less in the long term, and if they are required to save for a deposit this will add further to the deleveraging occuring in the economy as people spend less.
I think people continue to make the mistake that the past is an indicator of future behavior, or that trends will always continue. They dont. By that sort of reasoning if i got a puppy, and kept feeding it, one day it would be the size of godzilla and stomping all everyone. If that ever happended i would point it in the direction of Canbera.
February 19th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
@ Steve (#12)
Glad to hear that!
I don’t mean to be depressing or anything, but as TTINT said, if this Great Walk grabs the attention of journos, it’s likely that we will see all sorts of things published: from the more serious pieces to the total rubbish.
In any case, it’s regrettable that a scholar ends up in the middle of such unpleasant controversy.
We better brace ourselves for what may come. Hopefully, things won’t be so bad.
Steve, can you handle this kind of attention? Is it affecting your job?
Take care.
February 19th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
JUICING THE HOUSING MARKET WITH HOUSE PRICING VELOCITY, part 2
US Homeownership percentage
Empirical backing for part 1 is seen in the figure, reproduced for the above link. In the US market before 1944, there was a natural market for housing. The curve shows that the market had stabilized a c = 0.47 or 47% before 1944. In 1944, returning GIs took advantage of a housing stimulus known as VA loans which helped them to buy affordable housing. This program increased homeownership to 65% by 1980 or so. After that various FHA stimulus increased c to as high as 69%
February 19th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Steve et al,
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong” – Voltaire.
Jessica’s article and the general opposition from the MSM and so called other “economists” will continue as Steve’s message is too much to handle.
Keep up the good work Steve – you will be proved right in the long run as debt driven bubble economies cannot prevail.
Best regards.
February 19th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
The bit I liked best was her unsupported opinion that quote I don’t think Australia is on the precipice of a 40 per cent fall in house prices unquote.
I notice that she is economics writer for the SMH so presumably she must have some expertise in this area??
Basing my comments only on what she wrote, she appears to have no expertise or insight whatsoever-the article is nothing more than a patchwork of other pieces cut and pasted from the MSM over the last months. This is a pity for SMH readers who deserve better.
One might even venture to be a little unkind: You could precis the entire article into the first 3 words of the quote unquote above: I don’t think.
February 19th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Hi All,
The site of the 2010 Winter Olympics is scheduled for a foreclosure auction 2 days before the closing ceremony.
Lends a whole new meaning to down hill racing.
http://dailyreckoning.com/an-olympic-caliber-foreclosure-performance/
February 19th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Just to add to my earlier comment (#14), readers might also be interested to know that the Queensland Premier Anna Bligh’s electorate of South Brisbane is entirely within the PM’s federal electorate.
In fact, being in Highgate Hill, she should have received our brochure in her mailbox
Here’s a map of Griffith
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/pics/electrts/Griffith2.gif
and South Brisbane
http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/South%20Brisbane/Map.pdf
I would expect that Anna Bligh’s electorate would have an even higher proportion of renting households (based on the figures that I was supplied with when deciding on which areas would receive the brochures, as well as census data).
So this is a very rare opportunity to campaign against both a Prime Minister and a state Premier on an issue which the demographics would suggest they would be highly susceptible.
Surely such opportunities in politics are few and far between!
February 19th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Steve,
Managed to see the article on epaper. Maybe you could ask the author to let you put the JPEG file – its very visual. The elephant of debt looks funny.
February 19th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
This is a typical hit piece by Jessica Irvine. She may as well educate herself about the creation of new money by debt.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/it-may-be-struggling-now-but-you-can-be-certain-the-greenback-will-be-the-last-to-go-20100218-oiwa.html
“On this question, history is not very kind. It teaches us that all fiat currencies eventually reach their intrinsic value, zero. Some sooner than others, but the same fate awaits all.”
How about that, ‘intrinsic value’. Jessica should understand that the ‘intrinsic value’ of our housing is all out of kilter. The price of rentals or mortgages are rising by an average of 10% per year and Australian households are reaching barriers of affordability. When such barriers are reached (or breached), the more the lower end of the rental and housing market is squeezed. Does she mention that some housing in some locations have plummeted by 10% over last the few years?
If Jessica does happen to read this post about her, here are a few kindly words. You are a so called journalist from the multinational media house Fairfax. The Sydney Morning Herald trumpets the same propagandized media as Fox News does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dOOFB8fs38
Does your reporting of the news live up to the ideals of John F. Kennedy? It’s a shame that YouTube keeps on removing the videos of the audio of this speech. Does your hit piece on Steve actually inform and arouse the attention of the public? Does it inform the public that Steve Keen predicted the GFC. Does it mention about the deflation in housing values around the industrialized world? Jessica, do you know which industrialized countries still have housing bubbles?
February 19th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
@housingguru 13
Why do you not mention the 32% of households that are suffering under rental increases far outstripping the CPI? When they can’t afford to pay the rent for particular standard of housing, they must seek cheaper housing. This alone can cause the housing bubble to burst.
“There is a shortage of between 50,000 and 60,000 dwellings in Sydney relative to long term demand.”
This is not a shortage in housing. This is a reflection of the number of persons in the household which for 2007-2008 stood at 2.6 persons per household.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6523.0
Look at the graph S5. This is the real crisis.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Big slip by Glenn Stevens in his testimony today – Hansard record, p. 10 (last para) – http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/reps/commttee/R12597.pdf
“Many people quote the episode in 2003 where the Reserve Bank tightened monetary policy, said a lot about housing prices which were escalating quickly at that time, people were becoming very buoyant, and Ian Macfarlane had a lot of what we have called open-mouth operations, saying, ‘You’ve got to calm down.’ There were a couple of quick rate rises, which would have needed to be done anyway under the inflation target but we possibly did them a little earlier than was absolutely necessary. But that episode I think successfully helped to just calm down, at least for a while, a housing market that was getting a bit overheated.”
“at least for a while”
Did the RBA Governor just let it slip that he does not agree with the public position of the RBA (as argued especially by Ric Battelino) that the peak in our housing market was in 2003???
I think so!!!!
February 19th, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Michael Hudson has written another good article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17667
February 19th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
Regarding MSM vs Bloggers, I was fascinated/frustrated in 2008 ish, when headlines would appear on the msm, that i had read, and read the analysis of, and the commentary, etc etc, WEEKS ago. And it was presented as the latest development well after it had been done to death on the net. So when we moved, and really didn’t have the space for “The Telly”, we gave it away (the kids watched too much, and it was too easy). All the interesting stuff (even tv)is available on the net, and I gotta say, it just stumps the aggressive Austar door-to-door guys…”sorry, we don’t have a tv..” “what, none at all!!?…Oh, okay, Bye” LOL
February 20th, 2010 at 3:00 am
Steve, I admire your work, your personal conviction and your courage in the face of public ridicule. From what I can understand of the modelling you are pioneering, I believe history will ultimatly judge you to have been right on your economic philosophy.
As for the Australian Housing Price Issue, I believe we have reached the point at which any external shock to our economy that triggers a reduction in income will in turn cause a wave of defaults in the “sub-prime” FHVG belt and also in a lot of so called “prime” mortgages. Based on some of the figures I have seen, the people with the large “prime” mortgages outstanding ie the 25-50+ year olds with kids etc. with an average disposable income of circa $75k due to average of 1.5 people working ie double income are at significant risk of default if one partner loses job or even if hours are reduced. With a median price north of $600K already in Sydney the expected 20% rise quoted above by one blogger would move the median price above $700k. The only people who can afford this are people who are cashing in on equity already in their homes, not new entrants to the market – unless they are from overseas with a lot of money and/or investment bankers etc.
This is clearly ludricous when a median price in a capital city has already reached 8x average income, let a lone if it goes to 9-10 x at $700k.
Let me paint a scenario for the blogger bullish on sydney house prices above – this could happen:
From what I can understand – Aus is a one-trick economy – resources – particularly – thermal and coking coal and iron ore sales to China, Japan, Sth Korea, Europe, and a little to India + some other resources like Bauxite and base metals. Now, I believe that there is a good chance that when the mortgage resets occur in the US this year and next and commercial property finally comes home to roost we will see another meltdown in the US banks. Note unemployment will not improve much before this + baby boomers are saving what they have left for retirement not spending on gadgets from Japan and China. Same story in Europe except there the threat of countries defaulting seems real. Then all of a sudden China will realise the west isn’t going to return to buying their gadgets and other products any time soon so they better start conserving some of those savings and stop wasting it building more commercial property in their cities, I read the other day that in Beijing CBD there is apprently a 30% vacancy rate currently with a fresh new batch on the way.
Also Korea, China, Germany and Japan are all about to cop a big hit with reduction in demand in heavy industry like ship building – 90% drop in new orders in 2009 – just look at the Baltic Index – there is already an oversupply of shipping.
So when all those countries that buy our coal, iron ore, base metals etc. cut back by 30-40% on volume and price (as they did in the late 90s in the Asian crisis) and the investment bankers finally get what is due (due to US/Europe financial industry collapse)- then we may well see a collapse in employment in this country leading to a wave of defaults, foreclosures and a collapse in the property market like never before. Remember, it is always the margin buyer that sets the price – that’s why commodities skyrocketed in the 2000s due to China.So while there may well be many Baby Boomers sitting comfortably within their LVRs in Sydney, that won’t make any differnce when most of the real market at the margin (ie 25-45+) is really hurting.
February 20th, 2010 at 4:09 am
% family income, Australia
February 20th, 2010 at 5:52 am
What’s one thing that I like about this blog? The fact that you’re picking up useful things that the MSM won’t touch.
We all know there are tons of other financial blogs out there. IMO, 99.9% of them are just recycling. They play off people’s frustration and fear. We all know that Bernanke, Geithner and Greenspan are incompetent. Now, tell us something that we DON’T know. And these other sources just aren’t doing it.
A useful tip from “The Four Hour Work Week” by Tim Ferris. Build up your network of reputable sources. But then ruthlessly edit others. Try going on a media fast for a day and see how you feel.
This means:
No publications (print or online).
No news whatsoever.
Music is allowed.
No looking at any news sites online. If you have to look at something (for work, etc.), that’s ok.
See how you feel after that. Unfortunately, some news sources seem to be throwing out lots of shock value headlines (to boost sales and ratings). And in my experience, most could care less what the audience thinks (unless their profit margin is cut).
Which goes back to editing. If they won’t listen to you, then don’t go to them. Don’t contribute to their profit (hits, ratings, sales, ad revenue, etc.) in any way.
There’s lots of debate about how can progrssives unite to make a difference. Actually, it’s not as hard as you think. The key is in sheer numbers. If millions of people stopped watching Channel Nine or reading a Murdoch paper, they WOULD pay attention and do something about it.
Part of the problem is laziness (to a certaine extent). Many people want everything for free and delivered to their inbox (with no effort on their part).
The bad news is it doesn’t work that way. We can’t all be activists and then end up with our own syndicated column, radio show. Or Ministerial Post (Ex: Peter Garrett). However, it’s pretty weak to say this global metldown stuff pisses you off. But politicians and the corporations are all the same. So why bother?
If millions of people can vote on the X Factor and make Simon Cowell even more bloody rich than he already is, there’s no reason why you can’t turn that off and stay away from those advertisers.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:32 am
Chinese housing bubble: http://www.mydigitalfc.com/real-estate/more-chinese-find-homes-priced-beyond-reach-044?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+creditwritedownsnews+%28Credit+Writedowns%27+News+Feed%29
In January, property prices in 70 cities across China rose 9.5 percent from the level of a year earlier. The eighth consecutive annual rise added to worries of a real estate bubble.
The Chinese have massive overcapacity, houses/apartments are unoccupied or even rented to retain value, leading to more construction on the back of easy money. That endemic investor strategy adds to the over capacity but it never lasts and may deliver to China a lasting problem.
Canada’s bubble explained by David Rosenberg, the chief strategist for Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/ask-david-rosenberg-about-the-housing-market/article1471684/
February 20th, 2010 at 10:20 am
My brief summary for Jessica is the important points about Australia’s lack of recession are
1. The government is borrowing to help people pay their excessive mortgages, and to encourage people to buy expensive houses. Keeps prices high.
2. This is only working because the reliable financial community has reliably got it wrong and is underpricing debt in Australian dollars.
3. When they come to their senses, it will all end badly. My expectation is that NZ will be a wake-up call to anyone who feels like loaning money to a country in the local currency which has a badly run economy.
February 20th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Steve links to the study “No one saw this coming: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models” which contains this quotation from the Queen:
“She was asking me if these things are so large, how come everyone missed it?”
Luis Garicano on the Queen’s visit to LSE, November 2008″
A group of British Academy experts have responded.Their suggestion: the need for a better-coordinated government horizon scanning capacity – something that could take the form of a monthly economics briefing to the Queen, which would serve – as Professor Peter Hennessy has commented – to “sharpen minds” of officials. Read the full letter here (pdf).
February 20th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Ironically, later on in Glenn Stevens’ testimony (yesterday) the record shows that there was discussion about off the cuff comments he had made previously.
His response was to point to the dangers for Central Bankers not reading all of their comments.
Really, what a farce?
The most informed person in the country – thought amongst peers to be the most intelligent and able to fill the role – afraid of talking candidly and saying what he really thinks.
What really has the system come to?
Surely the people would be best served by our best and brightest saying what they really think!
Instead public servants have become politicians servants.
And for me there is no better example of that than the housing market and all of the goings on surrounding the FHVG.
I say get rid of the independence of the RBA – not for the reason the media is spruiking at the moment, that they are unelected but all powerful.
What a load of baloney. The only people that believe it is the poor bugger on the street too stressed about how he’s going to feed and house his family to take close notice of these things.
I am very certain that those allocating $Billions of capital in international markets are not falling for the “emporors new clothes” routine.
But for the opposite reason, that they are complete puppets of the politicians.
The answer is simple. Let perception = reality. Make sure everybody know very clearly that these senior bureaucrats are very much working for the Government of the day.
THEN put the Government of the day on the hook for the long term prosperity (economically and socially) of the country.
As I have said here before – make all politicians take “long positions” on Australia. Tie all of their pension, much of their political salaries, and even more of their post-political salaries to the long term performance of our country!
February 20th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
I wrote the previous message in some haste and thought it might be worthwhile expanding on a few things.
Firstly, my point with regards FHVG is that young Australians would have been better served, in my view, by a reserve bank that was very upfront that housing markets have been very toppy for a number of years, thus house prices very high.
Instead they continually argued that affordability was much improved, and gave the spruikers plenty of ammunition to manipulate the emotions of kids.
And even though I see the solution as simple, I am under no illusions that it’s implementation would not be challenging.
Of course, even more challenging would be laying the political backdrop to get politicians to implement these reforms.
But when you have people like Ross Garnaut (and others) saying that our system has developed in such a way that it is almost a political impossibility for politicians to act in the national interest, it is very clear that something needs to be done.
February 20th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
homes4aussies
You said: “Instead public servants have become politicians servants.” Spot on.
Public service is an obscene misnomer. A public service department or agency serves a political minister. Hence it is a political organ, serving a political interest, which is not the same things as a public interest. The agency has to serve which ever government happens to be in power. Because different governments may want to do diametrically opposite things, newly elected governments often have to make political appointments of heads of government agencies to make sure those agencies carry out the wishes of the governments of the day.
Government agencies have to be strictly hierarchic, military-like organization where the commander-in-chief dictates orders to the rest of the organization to ensure the wishes of their political masters are carried out. No one is therefore allowed to question orders. No one is therefore encouraged to think creative for the public interest, because this may lead to questioning of received orders. Most individuals are driven only by self-interest in such places. Such organizations are populated in the upper echelons with ignorant, arse-licking, psychopathic, political manipulators who are self-selected by the culture.
The public is not well-served by such useless and toxic workplaces. The evidence of failure is everywhere: public transport, education, hospitals… environment, where the latest is the home-insulation debacle. There is very little by way of transparency and accountability in the public sector because of its political origin. It is quite amazing that few people understand this simple dynamic and are constantly having their expectations dashed. Unless there are real changes, expect many more disasters.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
I would put it simply – if the politicians no longer act in the public interest, then neither can the people who answer to them.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Lyonwiss @ 42,
“Government agencies have to be strictly hierarchic, military-like organization where the commander-in-chief dictates orders to the rest of the organization to ensure the wishes of their political masters are carried out. No one is therefore allowed to question orders. No one is therefore encouraged to think creative for the public interest, because this may lead to questioning of received orders. Most individuals are driven only by self-interest in such places. Such organizations are populated in the upper echelons with ignorant, arse-licking, psychopathic, political manipulators who are self-selected by the culture.”
Quite right, and very much applies to both government departments and capitalist firms as well. Internally totalitarian, zero democracy, zero elections, the leaders are unelected, unaccountable and can serve potential life terms, and or-else orders flow from top to bottom with next to no ability by those below to countermand them.
For a society that apparently prides itself on the ideal of democracy, the rhetoric and actual practice are at polar opposites. We, as Australians, don’t accept totalitarianism in the political sphere, so why do we accept it in the workplace where we spend half our waking hours?
The culture and self-serving attributes you mention are the predictable outcomes of hierarchy, and, at the very least, should be moderated, and perhaps eliminated one day.
Good post.
February 20th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
homes4aussies
Politicians act primarily in political self-interest: getting re-elected. They will act in the public interest only under political pressure. Under democracy, people do not answer to politicians, rather politicians have to answer to the people. It is this roundabout, highly inefficient process that manages to save us from serfdom, dictatorship and other forms of tyranny.
February 21st, 2010 at 12:42 am
Another long time watcher, first time poster.
Very telling comments by many about government intervention, failure of government, RBA independence etc. However, I am constantly amazed at the people who correctly identify government intervention in its myriad forms as the cause of the current problems – and then immediately proceed to recommend yet more intervention in various forms in an attempt to rectify the problems.
Steve’s example in his paper ‘The coming depression and the end of economic delusion’ identifies government intervention as a major contributing factor to the ‘GFC’:
‘Therefore, although I differ with the Austrian school of economics in both my underlying analysis of capitalism and my preferred solutions to this crisis, I concur with them that government intervention has made this crisis far worse than it would have otherwise been.’
Yet part of the solution is then proposed as ‘… a complete debt jubilee, with all debts abolished, and complete ownership of all encumbered assets transferred to the borrowers, ….’ Ie. yet more intervention, and of the radical kind!
Remembering the following principles A) ‘first, do no harm’, and B) ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’, a simpler solution would be to permanently remove the interventions that caused the problem in the first part ie, remove the initial cause of the harm. And, don’t try to right a wrong by doing more wrong (intervening even further). Surely, not intervening in the first place is far better than intervening, then intervening further to try to correct the problems of the first intervention.
February 21st, 2010 at 12:46 am
Latest idiocy in the media can be located at: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/broadmeadows-million-dollar-future/story-e6frf7jo-1225832359213
Seriously – how can the REIV be allowed to spruik so hard and be held totally unaccountable….do they have no professional code of conduct, or ethics.
Anyway, I did some rough calcs, assuming:
1. prices in Broadmeadows really do what the REIV infer they will do by extending the historical trend (10 years just gone repeated again)- $357,000 in 2010 becomes $1.2M in 2020
2. Average Salary today $57,000
3. Average Wage increase 4% per year – $57,000 turns into about $84,000 in 2020 nominal dollars.
Results in a house price to wage ratio going from 6.3 in 2010 (which is above historical average) to 14.2 in 2020.
OK, let’s look at servicing such a mighty loan in 2020. Assuming:
1. prices are $1.2M in Broadmeadows
2. average wage earners live there earning $84,000 a year
3. 10% deposit
4. 30 year loan
5. 7% interest rate
Results in a monthly repayment of $7,185 or $86,220 a year. Which is more than the average annual wage pre-tax.
My rough calcs suffer from my own assumptions which will probably be proven far wrong – but I don’t believe the REIV have better ones.
February 21st, 2010 at 3:00 am
I belive you agree Goverment intervention has supported the housing market causing the bet with Rory Robertson to be at least temporarily lost.
Would you support the withdrawal of government intervention in order to win?
February 21st, 2010 at 7:13 am
Welcome aboard Gleambright,
It’s a question of whether one or two wrongs might make a right. -:) If we simply remove government intervention forever then we’re left with the legacy of debt caused by an out of control financial system that had been turbocharged by government intervention. Why honour debts that should never have been created in the first place, and which arguably would never have been created but for government intervention to prop up the system after 1987 (informally, that’s my preferred date for where to wind the debt clock back to, by the way)? If we attempt to, then we’re locked into a decade or more of debt-deleveraging on top of the other legacies of the intervention.
February 21st, 2010 at 7:32 am
Re #48. Don’t quite follow you winslow. I definitely favour getting the government out of the business of propping up asset markets–in fact I favour redefining asset markets so that bubbles can’t occur in the first place.