(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 21st, 2010 at 8:12 am
About Steve’s response to Gleambright.
This is what I don’t understand about Austrians. They know government/FED has screwed up yet their solution is to get rid of government regulation. Hence those that “won” during the government intervention years do not get punished but rewarded.
Steve takes it a step further and shows how it is not even a good solution for those that did not play in the debt game.
February 21st, 2010 at 8:29 am
bubble-o bill @ 47,
These sorts of future predictions remind me of the Dot-Com bubble in Australia and the US. Some tech firms’ stock had risen 8,000-9,000% in under a year and economists believed this was perfectly normal, as their financial models resulted in perfect ‘rationality’ and equilibrium. Thus, reality must apparently reflect these models, not the other way round.
Given the way that property prices has increased, Australian houses will have a multiple median of 12-15% by 2020, which is similar to tech stock increases. I would assume that this is the path that US houses were taking before 2006 but to a more moderate degree.
No bubble has been predicted by the majority of conventional economists, and for good reasons that are understood by heterodox economists and lay people interested in economics. Thus, we can’t depend on them for guidance on this issue.
February 21st, 2010 at 9:00 am
The problem which I have with the Austrian school (and other conservative schools) is fundamental and philosophical rather than just technical. It goes even deeper than my complete rejection of praxeology as a method of scientific research.
The Austrians assume that property rights are absolute and sacrosanct.
http://mises.org/story/2569
I think this stance is morally abhorrent and extremely naive from the historical perspective. Human dignity must be considered more important than property rights – not only Jesus taught about that.
Right wing libertarians are asking to be hanged from lampposts when the current Kondratieff cycle finally enters its Winter stage. I am sorry for using a strong language but this is what happened many times in the past. It is the combination of charging interests on debt and anchoring the real value of money which makes an extreme end of the cycle inevitable.
Rich people can invest in debt instruments generating a constant flow of interests. They can also invest in assets growing in value in time (speculation). Ponzi schemes can exist because of the leverage, somebody has to pick up a bill at the end.
The wealth of the rich are often claims on existing and future goods and services which have to be delivered by some other people in the society. These people who work and deliver are usually in debt. When the business cycle enters its deflationary phase these people who are in debt often lose jobs. This leads to real poverty and debt servitude as the debt is not completely wiped off.
Not only there are people who are poor and have to work but they are the most indebted.
Please remember – economy is to some extent a zero sum game. If the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. Even during the period of relative abundance (due to the advances in technology) there are millions of people receiving food stamps in the richest country in the world (US). But this is not an issue people talk about – the sexual life of Tiger Woods, the first golf billionaire is a much more important problem.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
(The article I lifted the graph from is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States )
Please put this in the context of the following graph:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/02/household_debt_vs_gdp.html
The previous breakdown of the global system led to the rise of Adolf Hitler (who forced the original founders of the Austrian school of economics to flee the country). If the delusion of absolute property rights is continued – you are putting a noose around your neck again. Do you understand this? Probably not. Praxeology will not tell you anything about these processes. You have to read about the history of Europe in 19th and 20th centuries. Even the tamest animal will charge if cornered. You Austrians and other conservatives are cornering 10-20% of the society, removing any hope for a decent life. Absolute property rights always lead to a separation of the society into 2 groups – these who own everything and these who own nothing and have no hope – because existing wealth gives birth to more wealth and the total sum of claims on wealth remains pretty much constant (or grows very slowly). If GDP goes down because of whatever reason (a war or normal recession in the business cycle) – the social explosion is imminent. Then thugs like Stalin or Hitler can seize the power and start committing their crimes against the humanity. I know that the intention some of right-wing libertarians was good… look at the consequences of implementing stupid ideas.
I observed the process of removing hope for a large part of the society in Poland – young people simply left the country in droves. Where will the Americans and Australians go? Do you still want a depression to “teach people a lesson so they will not go into debt”? People are not Pavlov’s dogs.
The Austrians want gold money to firmly anchor its value? The Austrians want to abolish any state intervention in redistributing the income? Fine, please ban usury as well – then the system will be stable but then it will be called a caliphate. This challenge cannot be dismissed easily by sending unmanned drones on madrassas – because Islamic scholars are right in this case. Humans are more important than property.
Do you understand? Liberal Western culture can be rejected by the poor masses in the US and other Western countries because the current system is inhumane. If you prefer Western culture – ditch the sacrosanct absolute property rights.
http://www.jubileeusa.org/get-active/jubilee-congregations/islamic-resources/islamic-perspectives-on-poverty-debt.html
Disclaimer:
I am not a religious person.
February 21st, 2010 at 9:09 am
Nice Pollyanna article in the Sun-Herald this morning,
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/property-boom-a-strong-tip-to-put-your-house-on-20100220-omph.html
where predictions of up to 10 percent rises in house prices are forecast for this coming year.
February 21st, 2010 at 10:27 am
ak @ 53,
Who are you directing that spray against?
February 21st, 2010 at 10:53 am
Philip – I believe ak was talking to everyone who reads this blog.
Demand Side vs Supply Side from David Brin (scifi writer).
Aka Supply Siders are QuasiMarxist.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2010/02/primer-on-supply-side-vs-demand-side.html
February 21st, 2010 at 11:33 am
Lyonwiss #45
I agree with what you say. I am not anti-democracy by any stretch. What I am saying is that the GFC highlights the deficiencies in the system which need fine tuning.
What a farce that politicians point to poor regulation and the shortermism of investment bankers when they, themselves, turned a blind eye and wound back regulation to those that have increased their political donations at a rate of 8% pa over the previous decade or more (if I recall correctly from Garnaut’s book)!
Here we have the RE part of the FIRE with their hooks into the political system the deepest.
The system needs fine tuning to ensure that the politicians are working for the betterment of the people not their political donors!!
The American people are feeling the consequences of this the greatest at the moment. But I think most of us here feel that we all are going to suffer if the situation is allowed to continue.
You know, I think Garnaut was very courageous in writing his book – I would imagine he would have done a great deal of soul searching as an “insider” to come out and say the things he has – but the media has not picked up very much of it at all, and I expect he probably feels that it, too, has gone into a black hole.
Like Steve’s work, while the book will serve as a historical account, and academics will quote it has having correctly pinpointed the weaknesses which ultimately led to the demise of our economies into the greatest recession/depression, I am sure that he would much rather it’s publication led to honest and open debate and ultimately the changes that are needed to put our economies and societies on a solid footing.
February 21st, 2010 at 11:45 am
Interesting to see the odd opinion journo starting to get a little cheesed off.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/bubble-id-like-to-burst/story-e6frfifo-1225832562444
February 21st, 2010 at 11:57 am
Bubble-o-Bill
Every city has its spruikers. Here in Brissie this report predicted a median price of around $1,000,000 by 2015 (P5, 100 x 1970 median price of $9,910 = $991,000)
http://images.brightfox.com.au/store/DIXO/Publications/%7B27DFC96C-9DA2-4997-89DA-0371ABF3E0B1%7D.PDF
For a while I tried to get in contact with the author to place a bet – $10,000 to him if it reached that price, $10,000 to me if not, plus a further $5,000 for each complete $100K in either’s favour. So if the median is at current levels in 2015, I would win $35K. If it is $1,550,000 he would win $35K.
Was not able to get the bet up.
Perhaps I am cynical, but I see a lot of people keen to influence lesser informed Australians to part with their cash, but few are prepared to put their own cash behind their predictions.
February 21st, 2010 at 12:52 pm
H4A
I would like to get a bet on at those odds.
The thing that really amazes me is how much people talk about housing – hysteria has put this topic to the front of public debate. I don’t see your view as cynicism – just prudent and responsible to you and your family. Starving for a mortgage is seen as a badge of honour, I see it as irresponsible. The piece that about $357k turning into $1.2M in 10 years is so irresponsible to those who can’t analyse for themselves. Too many people blindly read such tosh and then end up talking up a frenzy at the next barbie. Many who read it think, wow that is a huge profit, property is the way to make money….simple!
February 21st, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Philip,
My rant was not personal however recently I observed certain Austrian activity on this blog. I could have posted on another thread.
If we crash our system by insisting on the preservation of the value of the money during the crisis (the policy championed by the EU in Greece) the deflation will do its job. However there will be no vacuum.
These who think that poor, unemployed and bankrupt people will accept their fate because they know everything was their fault are plainly wrong in my opinion.
There were riots in France a few years ago triggered by social problems similar to what the Americans are experiencing now – which had both ethnic and religious overtones. The article linked below also shows how these issues were papered over by the MSM:
http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/561-Evidence-the-Paris-Riots-Are-Actually-the-French-Intifada.html
The brief Wikipedia articles linked below show how likely is for disadvantaged ethnic groups to embrace Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Australia#Aboriginal_Muslims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Black_Muslim_movements
Please remember that I watched the rise of the Catholic church in Poland after the collapse of the old communist system.
I have to admit that there is one more “solution” – someone will invent another global war.
I don’t think I can convince anybody that property rights should not take precedence over human dignity. This issue is so fundamental that it is almost an article of faith. I don’t think that you can convince an executive of a Big Pharma company either. But when they know that they are loosing – they reform.
In my opinion people who think that property rights are absolute should be made aware of the fact that they are wrecking their own beloved Western liberal and secular society. We have to remember that our middle ages (which followed the collapse of Roman Empire built on the principles of absolute property rights) were the time when the Islamic and Far Eastern cultures thrived. I would not bet on anarchism that it can save the day.
February 21st, 2010 at 4:14 pm
ak,
While I don’t agree with Austrian economic theory and policy, there is no need to rant like that. Don’t fall to their level.
I am confused as to the context where you say “I don’t think I can convince anybody that property rights should not take precedence over human dignity.” What are you referring to exactly?
Furthermore, I have no interest at all in attempting to convince any pharmaceutical executive of the substantial inefficiencies of the patent system, if that is what you are getting at. For those with the slightest knowledge of history and activism, one does not get on their knees and beg the rich and powerful to make life easier for others. Instead, one helps to inform and organize the victims of our social institutions to demand change for the better.
Either stand up and fight, or be prepared to suffer.
February 21st, 2010 at 4:16 pm
ak,
Unfortunately, like you I think the system as it is is so convoluted and twisted that until it breaks down completely and the west and possibly the world is basically in a debt deflation depression will the masses finally decide/realise that something better is needed.
Until then I think that the best we can hope for is that we will stumble from crisis to crisis with ever changing rules and increased intervention.
February 21st, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Bubble-o-Bill #60
Yes, it was a bit out of the Rory Robertson book of betting odds
In my defence I was not springing it on the guy infront of a live audience of a couple of hundred people – I proposed it on blogs and through intermediaries (was not able to get in direct contact) – so there was time to consider the proposal. I thought there may have been a negotiation of the terms if there was general agreement on going ahead with a wager.
Pity – would have spiced things up a little
February 21st, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Sorry, this is a little aside to address an issue raised by TITINT (thank you by the way for your previous exchanges, gave me good food for thought – if a system is broken or breaking, what do you do? When would you do it? I admit I have no answers.)
Anyway, in earlier exchanges an issue debated was regarding human nature and the evolution of people. I agreed then with the opinion of one person who said that natural selection was no longer operating on humans so further evolution was impossible. However, I just noticed in Schumacher’s book “A Guide For the Perplexed” , where he starts to get into some unconventional material, the following quote from 20th Century writer P.D Ouspensky. who states that his fundamental idea is:
“that man as we know him is not a completed being: that nature develops him only up to a certain point and then leaves him, either to develop further, by his own efforts and devices, or to live and die such as he was born, or to degenerate and lose capacity for development.
Evolution of man … will mean the development of certain inner qualities and features which usually remain undeveloped, and cannot develop by themselves”.
I don’t know anything else about Ouspensky, and I am still pondering the significance of this statement, so I cannot comment yet, but I thought you might be interested.
February 21st, 2010 at 11:20 pm
bubble-o-bill,
Thanks for the Hun link, that was very good for a laugh.
The story is even more stark in terms of affordability in Broadmeadows.
The average wage in Broady in 2006-07 according to the ABS was about 36k. The median would be a bit higher than that. Given some growth in the last 3 years lets give a generous median income of 50k for the suburb (closer to 40k more likely).
Given the 350k median house price in 2009 the median multiple of income is very very stretched already.
To even suggest median house prices will top $1M within 10 years based on bubble growth is at once both funny and very frightening. Frightening, because many Hun readers would read that article and think it is plausible.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 am
@ TITSNT, 11 Philip 44, Lyonwiss 45 and homes4aussies 57
Can we define what type of Democracy we are speaking of or even hoping for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#Theory
Currently we are under a system of Oligarchy which parades Corporatism as Capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:57 am
Philip,
Doesn’t the rise of Ron Paul in the US worry you? This is exactly about the Austrians and similar extreme right wing libertarians. They speak about freedom but in fact only have property rights in minds.
http://www.dailypaul.com/
They managed to hijack activism (Tea Party movement) for their own purposes.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:07 am
I see Michael Pascoe gives Steve a spray today in the age -
what happens when an aussie housing bubble bursts
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 am
Yes, but it’s not as total a spray as Pascoe has done in the past, and has a bit more realism than most of his articles.
Someone should also refer him to Figure 9 of Chay Fisher and Christopher Kent excellent RBA Research Discussion Paper 1999-06 (June 1999) “TWO DEPRESSIONS, ONE BANKING COLLAPSE” for a more long term look at what a real house price collapse looks like.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:22 am
PS here’s the figure:
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:50 am
Alan Gresley #67
The democracy that I want for our country and my kids is “of the people and for the people”
I agree with your description of the current situation.
There have not been too many homeless people sit down to a $5,000 lunch with a Queensland Labor politician, but a lot of property developers have!
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:51 am
Your property rights rant worries me AK. I have already seen confiscation of property here in this country. It was visited upon a minority group, who get virtually no media coverage and who would generally be regarded as opponents of the political party enforcing the outrage.
It is the habit of governments to act in this way. There is little correlation to corruption, etc in the decision making process.
Secondly it looks a very slippery slope. Who will have property rights and who will have none. Is their some sort of capital limit to property rights? Does the cancellation of property rights apply to companies? Funds? Pension funds etc etc etc Does it apply only to business people?
The potential for corrupt authoratarianism is undeniable.
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:06 pm
The debate goes on. IMO it’s all still a question of deflation or inflation. Which will it be?
On a global scale credit is still contracting (and hard). I follow the Keen school of economics. Contracting credit means deflation is upon us.
Australia is relying/hoping that two things will save us.
1. Commodity prices/demand will continue to grow (not even stagnate)
2. House prices/debt levels will continue to grow (not stagnate).
The bulls may be right and we will continue down the path of inflation/credit expansion, so that points 1 and 2 will be satisfied. Yet globally credit contraction accelerated during 2009 and accelerated further in January ’10.
The globe is clearly on a different path to Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Who will be right? Will Australia lead the world out of recession (ha ha!) or will the continued contraction of credit pull Australia into the hole?
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
BullTurnedBear,
I think Ak is just raising a valid issue. At the end of the day, if people are living in poverty and misery then there will be social repercussions. It may not be outright revolutions, but various acts of civil disobedience, perhaps higher crime rates, riots, etc. I personally think this was the situation in England after the enclosures of public lands (and the dispossession of entire villages to make Serenity Brown parks for the rich). Travelers to England noted the relative poverty of English peasants compared to the rest of Europe even generations later (Karl Polanyi was one who commented on this). I emailed George Monbiot about whether or not peole who could trace their ancestry back could seek compensation for these state enforced land thefts, I don’t know if it was in response to my email or not, but shortly afterwards he posted an article (see below) on this. He seems to think it is too long ago to matter – try telling that to the Australian aborigines. Maoris or any other group who had their land taken in the recent centuries.
In any case, England had massive social problems following this economic policy, and had poor people stored in rotting hulks on the Thames. It was only the French revolution that stirred them to action (concerned about uprisings) and led them to send these people to Australia – far out of harms way. I don’t think that situation is that different to today, where a new policy of the powerful is leading to stealing the wealth of yet another set of generations. I don’t know how to deal with it, but I think Ak is right: people now are probably far less likely to sit back quietly and let this happen than in the past. It is probably much easier to understand what is going on and to organise today with internet etc. Thus my concerns that governments and the privileged will resort to their time-tested techniques of dealing with such disparities – violence and oppression, or that people will turn to demagogues (as Ak mentions – like they did to Hitler in the past).
These or war are all possible outcomes if we do nothing – what is your alternative?
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/02/24/the-propaganda-of-the-victor/
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Sorry – my previous post should have been addressed to Flawse #73 – my apologies BTB.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Outback Oracle,
Yes I wanted to trigger a dispute.
All the property in this country was originally confiscated on traditional owners about 200 years ago so I would be very careful with using the argument of “confiscation”. Australia was inhabited and allocation of land was a subject of quite complex customary law.
My point is not that there should be no property rights or that private ownership of means of production should be banned – but that property rights should never be considered as absolute.
It is not “all or none”. It is “to what extent”.
Can I own a slave? Before 1865 somebody could if he/she lived in the US. But now I can own “intellectual property”, a lot of it …
Property confiscation performed by the communists when they took away factories, land and houses without compensation (often persecuting the owners) was clearly unjust and immoral – it was similar to crimes committed by the Spanish (and later British) colonisers.
But this does not mean that any limitation of property rights is immoral. It may be considered morally good in the context of any ethical system except for a right-wing libertarian one.
Not allowing rural property owners to clear all the land for the benefit of environment is for me an example of good violation of property rights. Another example might be a forced buyback of water allocation to enable environmental flows in the rivers. I fully support these measures if they are applied in a just manner and owners are compensated.
Finally land and property taxes are considered to be a violation of property rights by some libertarians. Similarlly debasing a currency (or allowing for inflation to reduce its value) is considered to be immoral.
However there is already an existing income redistribution mechanism in the form of charging interests on loans in particular and providing investment return on any investment in general. This does not violate property righs.
This mechansim makes the whole economy unstable over a very long period of time. We need to disaggregate graphs (debt/GDP) shown by Steve for the whole economy to show the position of individual social groups. During the cycle rich get richer but poor have to consume all their income or even borrow (sink in debt).
Please have a look at “WEEKLY OWNER OCCUPIER MORTGAGE REPAYMENTS AS A PROPORTION OF WEEKLY GROSS HOUSEHOLD INCOME: INCOME GROUP(a)(b)”
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features60March%202009
To fix this we have to expropriate the rich by taxing them (directly or indirectly) or we will have to face the dire consequences – first the growing exploitation of the poor and finally the breakdown of the system.
Do you disagree with this model?
The slippery slope you mentioned may actually be related to allowing for that discussion to take place in the first place. If we say that any wealth redistribution performed by the state is theft and there is no control over what “they” (the oligarchy) will do – there is no slippery slope and there is no discussion. We are then firmly anchored in the current model which has to fail sooner or later.
So maybe it is in our own interest to start considering property rights as not absolute even if the alternative is not perfect.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:34 pm
I have tried a number of times to post a comment on Michael Pascoe’s article – I keep on getting an error message that the code does not match.
The last couple of codes have been “danked” and “snoded” – I googled both – “danked” means under the influence of marijuana, “snode” is a low-cost wireless network for remote control and monitoring networks.
Me thinks I’ve been hacked – again! (Some fool hacked me about 6 months ago and deleted all of my housing research files!)
Any advice from the IT people out there???
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:56 pm
homes4aussies,
I had exactly the same problem in the morning and I tried from 2 operating systems / browsers (Linux / Firefox and Vista / IE) so something was wrong with the account which I established ad hoc on smh. I would be very surprised if both the OSs had been hacked.
I may give it another go in the evening.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:59 pm
What’s surprised me is the ratio of comments in my favour, and expressing pretty informed opinions about the debt-financed basis of the housing bubble. It’s been very gratifying to read them–I wonder whether Pascoe is also reading them and what his reaction is? He certainly hasn’t been given the “good on you” by the majority of commenters–closer to precisely the opposite.
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Steve
Similalrly in Jessica’s article almost everyone attacked her for her denial. I think what you are seeing is the downfall of these economic commentators as the masses are sick of their “I know so” attitude and getting it wrong almost every time.
There’s a saying in Buddhism that if you want to see the truth then put your hand over your ears and see with you eyes. That is what is taking place. People have put the hands on their ears and not listening to these denialist and just seeing with their own eyes the hardship and exorbitant level of debt their peers have taken. It’s just common sense and not rocket science. It’s inherent in our nature.
My mother is a prime example. She was always pushing me to buy a home and constantly nagging that it will keep rising and there will not be a correction. Anways she recently went to buy land to build a new house to downsize and was shocked ta the price. It was $459k for 550 square metre block. This is was selling for $100k less a year ago. She has changed her mind and now believes that their are forces at work that creating these prices. A complete change.
I think we may see a backlash at the elections if enough people speak about this.
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Hi there everyone and Steve.
I am a first time poster to this blog! I was privileged to recently hear Steve talk at Swinburne University. It was incredibly insightful and somewhat soul destroying. As a student who is about to begin his honours year in economics I suddenly felt like I needed to begin my studies over. Thanks for the awakening Steve.
Anyway, below is a post from ‘The Age’ by Michael Pascoe with some reference to Steve.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/property/what-happens-when-an-aussie-housing-bubble-bursts-20100220-omce.html
Cheers
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Thanks joyboy73,
On that front, I will post the Swinburne talks here shortly. Matt, any news on how the production of a DVD of the first talk is going?
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:22 pm
I will send the edited version to you ASAP.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Excellent–thanks Matt. I’ll get the lecture to economists ready to post later this week too.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Hi AK
Your reference to the confiscation of the property of rural families for the greater good of society happens to be a great example of the slippery slope.
You say ‘Property confiscation performed by the communists when they took away factories, land and houses without compensation (often persecuting the owners) was clearly unjust and immoral’
You support it. So do most city people who are unaware of the facts in relation to the environment, the equity issues both between farmers and between farmers and society, the method of implementation, the policing methods employed by the Government. It is an issue that as an Agricultural Scientist and a farmer in former years, I know a lot about. This is not an appropriate place for lengthy discussion.
What exactly is the difference between the confiscation as done by the communists in your area of knowledge and what was done to farmers here? Again please be careful of limited knowledge here…it is a dangerous commodity.
I think you illustrate my point exactly and you will see it if you keep an open mind. You have a perception and your perception is enough to justify the confiscation of property rights in this case. I use the word ‘confiscate’ advisedly.
I think you are also confusing a couple of issues re taxes on property. You claim as justification for your stance on property rights that ‘some libertarians’ claim property taxes are an infringement of property rights. Well I don’t know….that maybe. However, I don’t think that it makes much of an argument against the right to private property for the majority of people.
Lastly, another thing that scares the hell out of me is the use of highly emotive language and reference to justify whatever programne is being dreamed up to remove the rights of some citizens. The issue of aboriginal occupation has been dug up here to justify the confiscation of rural land. Yet we are not proposing to remove all property rights for all people on this basis…just some!
As I say, you scare the hell out of me.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:32 pm
AK Please note….I meant you currently support the confiscation of the property rights of farm families…not that you supported the past activities of the communists in this regard.
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Sorry, I am typing this while trying to work at the same time.
Re ‘some libertarians’…what you say may be true. frankly i wouldn’t know but I’d probably argue terms with you in that regard. I do understand that taxes can be used as defacto confiscation if they are sufficiently severe. However, I think justifying confiscation of property and using as an argument that ‘some libertarians believe’ does not add much to the discussion of the actual pros or cons.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:28 pm
MMitchell
I don’t see society the way you and AK do. I don’t see a bunch of evil rich geniuses on one side and a mob of poor ignorant exploited peasants on the other. I see a whole spectrum of very ordinary people doing their best. Many of us make huge mistakes in the process. Sure there are many psychopaths amongst our rulers and amongst those with whom we walk and work. Statistically that is a given. Yet somehow generally we ordinary people seem to tread a reasonably steady course.
Let it be said straight off that I see no easy solutions to all the problems. I’ve said it often enough that, to me, the solutions lie back in time. I don’t blame the Government. We have constantly elected those who promised us the easy path. Socrates predicted that so long ago. I believe people make a free choice to go into debt. Yet I also believe that the activities of banks, lawyers, and the “Harvey Normans’, has been unconscionable. I believe all sorts of things in this society to be inequitous (if there is such a word!!!)
I’m not here to tell anyone how the country ought be organised.
Nevertheless, I would hold very close the idea that a cavalier attitude to individual rights in various forms is a very dangerous thing. This is not to claim that there is not injustice in our society. However I cannot help that injustice is better fought through the reformist activities of individuals rather than by laws which pretend to be acting for the ‘greater good.’
George Orwell’s predictions on this subject ought ring in everyone’s ears and be a constant reminder to us to be vigilant.
P.S. Yes! In my private bitter moments, like Madame Defarge, I too sit and knit!!!! No one is perfect!!!!
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:48 pm
In 100 years time what will count more – the irreversable environmental damage done to the Murray-Darling river basin by the irrigators or the fact that some of them had their water allocations bought back by the government? What is the sense of having cotton grown in Northern NSW on a large scale plantations?
http://www.murrayusers.sa.gov.au/big_picture2.php
I have choosen the example on a purpose to provoke a discussion because we need to show the fundamental conflict of interests between property rights of an individual (or a small group of people) and the rights and interests of the whole society. In this case the right to live in a healthy environment. This is not “the government” who limits property rights. This is all of us.
Only if we think that property rights are absolute and nothing else matters we may compare imposing environmental restrictions on farmers to seizing properties by communists.
This is exactly the slippery slope – in our reasoning.
It is time to start talking openly about the real conflict of interests not just about fake absolute values invented by a few long dead philosphers.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Flawse,
I am not saying that there are evil geniuses, but nor do I think that everyone is benign. I have good evidence from friends in senior positions of very large organisations who can give stories of just how non-benign some high level people are (people who get bonuses for cutting costs) causing a lot of damage to the corporations and people who work in them (mind you this has opened opportunities for some of these former employees to go into competition against the newly damaged companies, but the overall effect is not good for the shareholders and workers). I am also related by marriage to the owner of a large bog-box store chain, and I am fairly sure the actions of that person, largely because of the enormous power he has over so many people’s lives, should not be considered benign. What would be considered questionable, or even perhaps unethical, on a small scale becomes much more serious when it affects so many, and this is one of the problems of our current corporations (especially as someone pointed out as there is limited opportunity for employees to control their environment – even if it is in the company’s own best interest against its corporate raider bosses).
I agree you have to very careful when talking about redistributing wealth using taxes or any measures rally. However, it is possible that many of our large agri-business farms may become less viable as fuel and fertilizer costs increase. In this case, it may not take much incentive for farmers to offload some of their land to smaller farmholders, without them really losing much given these changed circumstances. A good case for people giving up land may be if they are unable, or unwilling to maintain it properly. As for houses I am not sure, but perhaps a similar argument could be made. If we get to the point like America where houses are sitting there rotting because no-one knows what to do with them, then maybe they could be bought or made available cheaply to at least someone who will use and look after the asset properly. Obviously, these ideas are very crude at this point, but it is along these lines that I think some redistribution might be possible.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:29 pm
The fact that the government is sometimes/often corrupt or act in the interest of lobby groups doesn’t mean that we have to get rid of it and remove any control because this would be much worse. Then corporations and other private bodies will start controlling the society because there can be no vacuum. We can see this process in some countries where governments are weak – for example pushing GM products if we want to talk about the agriculture.
I am not totally anti-GM in general but I would be very cautious if someone claims intellectual property rights on seeds…
The above only means we need to hold the government accountable and do not allow them to control too much or too little.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Thanks for that AK #79
I agree that what happened on your computer is not suspicious.
I do not pretend to know a lot about internet security programs or even computers. But it seems to me, taking into account things that have happened previously, that what happened on mine is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance.
The peculiar apect is not that I kept getting a code failure message, but also the actual codes that were being generated – the last two being “danked” and “snoded”. (There was another one which ended in “er”.)
I thought that peculiar because they seemed to be actual words – not randomly generated letter codes – and a quick google confirmed that they are indeed words (as I said in #78).
Moreover, one word would be unacceptable for use in a security system for a reputable business, and the other is IT terminology and could well relate to hacking as it seems to have something to do with the ports of the computer??
(Note, I’d never heard of these words before – perhaps that is giving me the hint that I’m getting on – back in my day we called it getting “ripped”
)
Over the last two years – since I decided to play a role in the public debate about housing – there have been a lot of suspicious things happen. I have tried to ignore them and tell myself not to get too suspicious (and not worry too much about the security of my family – I’m not one to be intimidated).
But then files were deleted from my computer and my suspicions were confirmed. Another interesting thing about that episode is that I did not mention it online at all, then after about two months I mentioned it in an email to a senior federal public servant.
The next morning I got a call from my bank telling me that there was a suspicious transaction on my credit card overnight and that my credit card had been cancelled.
I suspect that my computer has been persistently tampered with over period – and perhaps I have been monitored to some degree – by whom I do not know.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:06 pm
On the issue of media, some people may find the following interesting. But a guy who was hired to work in Canberra. His story makes Hollowmen look mild:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/yes-minister-meets-alice-in-wonderland-20100220-omsa.html
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:09 pm
That is worrying Homes4Aussies,
Maybe Steve and everyone who posts on his site are also under covert digital surveillence?
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:10 pm
AK
I should have been more specific re rural families. The real example I was trying to use was your statement
‘Not allowing rural property owners to clear all the land for the benefit of environment is for me an example of good violation of property rights.’
You dodged the issue of the land clearing legislation in favour of the irrigation debate. My concern in the irrigation debate is about efficiency. A lot of people have been paid a lot of money who should NOT have got it. Decisions have been made by people who did NOT know what they were doing. Tens of millions have been paid for water that simply was not there. The money has been mostly paid for a few favourable newspaper headlines.
Why do you discriminate between the rights of irrigators and the rights of people who own rural land? Or was the irrigation argument just more convenient because some compensation has been paid to some? Personally I’d have thought the average farm family deserved more consideration than the corporate irrigators….but that’s just me and by my own arguments not how I ought to think.
I did start to write at length as to the wrongs in this, but again this is not the place. This debate is simply about whether we should take a cavalier attitude to private property rights.
My simple point is that as long as some group thinks it is OK to confiscate someone else’s property for their own benefit or self interest then it is WRONG. It should have all our opposition. There is no end to that thinking. You chose a particularly good example of that process. The real problem is that it does not worry you. It ought. It does not worry most people, who live in carbon junkies cities, so certain in their superior knowledge. It ought.
For we are all often wrong either through lack of information or bad logical process. We should be very careful about confiscating homes, savings and property…of whatever kind.
Again what I think ought to happen and what is happening and will happen are two different things. I’m sure your arguments will hold sway AK.
P.S. Even if all the environmental considerations in regard to tree clearing were true, even if the carbon models were not incomplete and simply wrong, and that scientists working in the field actually agreed with the intent, there were better ways than discriminatory confiscation. Confiscation was easier, suited the powerful corporate interests and the private political motivation of those who enacted it.
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:18 pm
MMitchell…re not all benign etc….yeah I know! You’re right about all that I’d guess…Thanks for that response..That’s why I don’t proscribe processes as answers to the problems!!!!
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Outback Oracle,
Banning land clearing is not only about carbon sequestration (what may be controversial) but also biodiversity and water management. I can provide a lot of links to prove my point but you may obviously dismiss them as a greenwash invented by lazy city-dwellers.
I am not a blanket supporter of Labor governments and I haven’t said that there were no irregularities but I firmly believe that it is better to have the current imperfect regulations than to allow every land owner to do whatever they want. There is nothing wrong in trying to get these things right and eliminate nonsense- this is a part of the democratic process to find a reasonable compromise between conflicting interests and points of view.
My point is that property rights are not sacrosanct and all the interests and rights (including these of farmers of course) should be taken into account.
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Alan Gresley @ 67,
Capitalism is always and everywhere a form of oligarchy or plutocracy, though it depends to what degree. Where the class warfare is greatest in the West, say, the United States, then that really is an extreme form. In the Scandinavian welfare states, it is much more moderate, with Australia been somewhere in between the two.
If you look at the history of capitalism, it becomes clear that actual reality and rhetoric is at polar opposites. Capitalism, whether it is called corporatism or social democracy, is simply variants upon a theme. A tiny minority of the population owns and controls the majority of resources and property and makes decisions far outside of the effect it has upon them, while the majority of the population take or-else orders day-by-day and are completely dependent on working for a boss (“free contact”).
Social democracy can certainly moderate the problems but the underlying institutions remain the same everywhere. For progressives, I think it is a major mistake to think that simply voting in new political representatives is going to change much at all. Without a decent economic program that steps outside of mainstream economic theory, progressives will simply be rather useless. On this topic, Michael Hudson recently gave a talk about this in Melbourne, it certainly is worth listening to.
Under capitalism, democracy is a bad joke. Every four years, investors come together to control the state: we call this an election – choosing amongst a handful of representatives who have already been vetted and bought off by the corporate class.
ak,
Concerning Ron Paul, it really depends on a person’s circumstances. If Paul ever came to power, he would likely put an end of the US military machine, and the people of the world would rejoice (apart from Israel, Egypt and a number of other subsidized and protected nations). He would also legalize drugs, which would be a colossal progressive advancement for the economy and society. In some ways, he would also attempt to force free-market discipline upon the rich, which would result in wealth flowing down to the middle and working classes.
On the other hand, he would support private health care, and abolish IP without replacing it with any other system of R&D, which would be a disaster. The chance for free/subsidized medical care and education would be also eliminated. Useful regulations upon firms would be removed to the greatest degree possible, not good. Social welfare programs would also be scrapped. And then there is the gold standard, whatever you may think of it.
So with these few policies, there are advantages and disadvantages.
On the matter of property rights, if there is one illegitimate group of property rights, it is IPR. Considering that information is non-rivalrous, non-excludable and has a zero marginal cost of reproduction, it has the characteristics of a pure public good. Thus the principles of applying property rights to information are invalid. This has been recognized even by conservatives such as Austrian economists, who are very hostile toward this form of property rights. They recognize, in part, some of the enormous costs it imposes upon individuals and the economy.
As to the Tea Party protesters, who are drawn from the ranks of the right wing, have very legitimate concerns. The bottom 80% of income earners have seen their incomes decline since 1973, adjusted for inflation, life-saving pharmaceuticals are purposefully made unaffordable for many, health care costs are double that of comparable Western countries, the government is way out of control with its military spending, and then gave $US12 trillion to the richest people in the banking sector. Political liberals such as Obama have done nothing to correct the problems in US society and are actively promoting them. The Right recognize this, and don’t like it. Either do progressives.
It is unfortunate that the Tea Party protesters, whilst having legitimate concerns, are been organized by those who cause these problems in the first place! The rich are probably laughing when they see these protesters go off on the tangent that they have.
For instance, if they want more affordable health care, then implement a public health care system such as that found in Australia or Canada or France. But they oppose that! Such is the persuasion of corporate propaganda.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Philip,
Just apply what you have stated in the first paragraph:
“If you look at the history of capitalism, it becomes clear that actual reality and rhetoric is at polar opposites.”
to your expectations from the second:
“If Paul ever came to power, he would likely put an end of the US military machine, and the people of the world would rejoice … He would also legalize drugs, which would be a colossal progressive advancement for the economy and society. In some ways, he would also attempt to force free-market discipline upon the rich, which would result in wealth flowing down to the middle and working classes.”
That’s why I am so concerned by Ron Paul and the others hardcore right-wing libertarians.
The key issue is to dismantle the ideological grip the neocons and similar groups have on the wider society. No meaningful discussion about reforms or alternatives to the current system is possible if absolute property rights are treated as the axiom. The libertarian personal freedom concept is a fig leaf in that context. (this may sound a bit Marxist but I believe it is true). How much personal freedom may homeless, unemployed and malnourished people exercise?