As is widely known, I will be walking from Australia’s Parliament House to Mount Kosciousko–a distance of 225km–as the result of losing part of a bet with a well-known “bull” on property in Australia, Rory Robertson. I am obliged to wear a T-Shirt with the words “I was hopelessly wrong on house prices: ask me how” emblazoned on it.
As I explain on www.keenwalk.com.au, I was ambushed with this bet in front of an audience of 80-100 people at Parliament House. I have responded in kind by turning the walk into a protest about the manner in which keeping property prices high has come to dominate economic policy in Australia–with what I prefer to call the First Home Vendors Boost being the most outrageous example of that.
The designs for the T-Shirt continue this theme. I will produce at least 3 of designs shown below.
Design No. 1 highlights the impact of the First Home Buyers Grant over the last 30 years. It was first introduced in 1983 by the Hawke Labor Government, then expanded in 1988 as a way of boosting the economy when it was feared that the economy could enter a recession. It was reincarnated by Howard in 2000 as a temporary boost to help the housing sector adjust to the GST, then temporarily doubled in 2001 as part of a stimulus package to avoid a recession, and of course most recently doubled again in September 2008 by the Rudd Government as part of its anti-GFC package.

- The First Home Owners Grant and House Prices
The graph shows the ratio of house prices to household disposable income from 1980 until now, with the dates on which the Grant was either introduced or doubled marked by the dotted lines. It’s obvious that the Grant triggered growth in the real cost of housing every time, with its most spectacular “successes” being in 1988 and 2001.
Unlike some commentators, I don’t blame the government entirely for the house price bubble–there I point the finger at a financial system which is always willing to finance a Ponzi Scheme when one can be found. But it’s clear that the First Home Owners Grant seeded the Ponzi Scheme by setting off a buying frenzy every time it was introduced.
Design No. 2 highlights what has always been the main game for me: the growth in Australia’s debt to GDP ratio, driven by lending for speculation rather than lending for productive investment. This is the third debt bubble in Australia’s economic history since 1860, and it is by far the biggest.

Debt: the engine beneath the bubble
Since nothing has been done about this debt level–in fact, Australia has in part got out of the GFC by encouraging debt levels to grow once more–this is still the force that I expect to see dominate Australia’s future economic performance. If private debt continues to rise, then the apparent post-GFC boom will continue. But if the household sector joins the business sector in deleveraging, then the change in debt will drive aggregate demand down and Australia will find that the GFC is not quite behind it.
The most recent data indicates that the bubble in household debt burst in the month that the First Home Vendors Boost expired. In “Home loans slump most in a decade“, Chris Zappone notes that the ABS has reported that:
The number of home loans plummeted by 7.9 per cent in January, the biggest fall since June 2000, after the phasing out of last year’s first-home buyers’ grant boost and interest rate rises sapped demand.
January’s result follows a revised 5.1 per cent drop in December, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported, citing seasonally adjusted figures. Economists had been predicting a 2 per cent increase in January…
Total housing finance by value fell by 3.3 per cent in January, seasonally adjusted, to $21.2 billion.
Design No. 3 shows just how far out of line Australia’s house prices are with the rest of the world. Japan had its own Bubble Economy period in the 1990s, which drove Japanese real estate prices up to a peak from which they have spent the last 20 years descending; the USA’s bubble took off in 1998 and peaked in 2006; but both these are dwarfed by Australia’s roller coaster rise ever upwards.

The Kangaroo Bubble vs the Setting Sun and the Very Bald Eagle
Nominal prices only ever fell once–in 2008 prior to the First Home Vendors Boost, which set off the latest bubble. Unfortunately, both sides of Australian politics mistakenly identified falling house prices as the cause of the GFC, and therefore agreed to this policy to inflate house prices even further, which was disguised as a means of helping new buyers into the market.
(Of course, the real cause of both the apparent prosperity before the GFC, and the GFC itself, was not the bubble in house prices and its bursting, but the bubble in private debt that provided the leverage that drove house and share prices up, and its bursting in 2007-08. This real cause was ignored by all politicians–and all but a handful of economists–until it was too late.)
Design No. 4 shows that Australian house prices have fallen when adjusted for inflation, and Australia’s inflation rate has been higher than that of Japan or the USA. But even after adjusting for inflation, our house prices are twice as high as America’s, and 2.5 times as high as they were back in 1986 when the ABS began recording them.

The Kangaroo Bubble vs the Setting Sun and the Very Bald Eagle
Finally, Design No. 5 emphasises the folly of projecting current trends in asset prices into the infinite future. This is the famous Herengracht Index, which tracks the real price of housing on Amsterdam’s wealthiest canal from 1628–just before the Tulip Bubble–until 1973.

350 Years of data from the land of tulips
If you had been born in, say, 1735, you might have died as an 85-year-old, convinced that house prices always fall, compared to consumer prices, since for most of that period house prices did in fact fall in real terms. However if you had been born in 1820, you might have reached our modern retirement age convinced that you could live off rising wealth from your housing assets–since they would have risen since you were born–only to find them declining for the next 60 years.
Finally, after focusing on the housed on the front of the T-shirt, the back turns its attention to those without homes: the logo is for Swags for Homeless, the brilliant Australian charity that is doing something now for the homeless, by providing a homeless person with a light, waterproof, fireproof portable bed for every A$60 donation that it receives. Click on the image below to make a donation to this very worthwhile cause.
As noted, I’ll produce at least three of the above designs. The minimum order I can make is for 15 copies of each T-Shirt, and the production costs are roughly $50 each. I will need to wear about 14 of these myself on the run; the others will be available for anyone who is willing to do the whole Walk with me (so far there are 3 takers).
I will also produce more copies if people are interested in buying them. If you’d like to buy a T-Shirt, then please make a donation to The Walk of $80 or more (for an Australian address) or $100 (for an overseas address) using the donate widget there. Be sure to specify which design (1 to 5) and your mailing address in the Comments field for the donation.
Designs 1 and 2 are certainties; I’ll also produce either Design 3 or Design 4, depending on feedback here. Design 5 may be produced if there is enough demand. If you want any of Designs 3-5, be sure to specify a fallback Design if we don’t get enough orders to go ahead with all 5 T-shirts (if you specify Design 3 or 4 and we actually make the other, we’ll automatically swap over since there is not a lot of difference between them).
Finally, if you want some anti-bank paraphernalia that is a bit more general than what I’m offering here, take a look at the site “I hate the nab“, where there is a range of T-shirts and other items for sale.




Hey Steve really great designs!
I will try to join you for the last segment – I have always wanted to walk to the summit of Kosciousko! And what better reason than to support you and your research:)
On a side note
Housing finance market plummets
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/10/2841736.htm?section=justin
Who would have thunk it?
Hi Steve,
Just a thought…
The average punter watching a 10 second sound byte will probably assume the first exponential growth looking chart are showing home prices. This may not get your piont across as intended.
Alan Kohler produced a chart on ABC news last night of housing costs relative to food etc basics over 50 years. The precise terms are to be qualified if I can get the chart from the ABC. Or if Mr Kohler is reading this blog, please supply the chart.
Anyway, his reason for showing it was that Housing has exceeded food and basics for the first time. He reasoned it was larger houses with more features…and then he said ‘cheap debt’ was also a cause. Interesting, because for many months he had touted the old supply and demand line that RE use.
Steve,
The graphs are great providing you can read them clearly.
How about putting the “I was hopelessly wrong on house prices etc” away from the actual plotlines.
I reckon it would look better and be more effective at getting your point across.
Re #4 and #2,
Thanks, but I actually like the convoluted ones here guys. I think they twist Rory’s words as much as some of the property hawks have twisted the stats to obscure the existence of bubbles in debt and house prices.
I also don’t want people to be able to read them at a glance–I want them to have to work at it. A bit of thinking rather than just a knee-jerk reaction, so to speak.
I am also checking about some cheaper manufacturing processes–the anti-nab site I linked to down the bottom may have a substantially cheaper supplier than I have found so far.
Steve,
Whilst I admire the research you have done… and agree with your comparative and historical analysis of debt ratios; I can’t help but think your attempt to obscure the words on the T-shirt are a terrible display of refusal to accept that you were wrong. You may yet be right on the increasing levels of debt yet… (I certainly don’t doubt it) but your wager was based on timing. If timing is not your forte, then do not enter into a wager with this as a critical factor.
I understand you might see this as an opportunity to further your cause, and fair enough.
But you lost the bet Steve. You were wrong. Fair and square.
Take it with integrity.
JK
I can accept this to some degree Jack,
But I insisted throughout that I wasn’t trying to call house prices over the immediate term but over 10-15 years–in fact if you listen to Rory’s speech in which he called the bet on me (accessible via http://www.keenwalk.com.au from the Parliamentary Library website) you will hear me interject “over ten to fifteen years mate!” as Rory calls the bet.
I tried to get acknowledgement of that after the event, and let’s just say that Rory was not particularly easy to negotiate with on that front.
If I had the awareness of how Rory debates prior to the speeches we gave at the Parliamentary Library, then I would have not agreed to the bet on the spot, but would have insisted on having terms drafted by third parties that were strict and included time frames, etc, and a drastically revised set of quantitative measures to the ones in the bet.
But I didn’t do so, and instead fell into an ambush. Having been ambushed on the terms, I am ambushing back on the execution. Normally I bend over backwards to be reasonable, but this one time that I am not going to do so.
I don’t agree that we can compare the bet Steve has lost with horse racing or playing pokies. I think that there might be a temptation to reduce the whole discussion to that dimension. I don’t agree with that view.
Let’s ask a few more interesting questions:
1. Is Steve right or wrong in identifying speculation as the main factor affecting high house prices in Australia? Is this a bubble or not?
2. Will people who bought houses in 2009 experience capital gains or will they lose if the real (not nominal) prices slide down over the next 10-15 years? If the prices collapse the fact that house prices went up in 2009 only matters to these who manage to sell them in 2010.
3. Is low housing affordability affecting the opportunities of the younger generation? Is this fair? Do these people have a fair go? (Note. I have a house but I also have children)
4. If debt deleveraging occurs, how will it affect the whole Australian economy? Has this phenomenon been correctly identified by Hyman Minsky as the predominant factor causing recessions or was he wrong? If Minsky was wrong, what has caused the current global recession?
5. Was it good or was it bad that the current government encouraged the First Home Owners frenzy? Was it fair for these people in the long run?
6. In this context, was the mistake in predicting the timing of the main deleveraging event so critical that we should throw away the whole message and shoot the messenger?
I believe that these people who thought in good faith that Steve was wrong by trying to undermine the confidence in 2008 and 2009 – I believe these people were delusional. Sound economy cannot be built on “confidence” and borrowing money forever for a debt-fueled overconsumption of imported goods. The reality cannot be replaced by marketing. The “consumer confidence” is the main barrier in solving our real problems – for example related to the environmental unsustainability. While I agree that the housing bubble should be deflated in an orderly way (more like in Japan than in the USA) – re-inflating the bubble won’t help anybody except for a few bankers and speculators.
ak.
What you say makes sense and it really is the crux of the argument. This is a wonderful opportunity to express the real message accoss to those that want to know about economic instability built on housing prices and how this is going to continue if not corrected. It is alright to say a bet is a bet and therefore the winner is right. However, not so if the bet is wrong and the other party still fulfils the loser’s bid then why not make the explanation known as to the reason why?
Steve , if Rory was half the man you are he would join you on this walk, laugh all the way and continue the debate with the media rather than dismiss the situation with “I am right because I won the bet” At worse call the Jury’s out on this one at best Rory will not be there to complete the bet when you have the right to claim victory.
Come on Rory walk the talk and then you may have the right to talk the walk on even terms. Do it because you believe you’re right rather than you took advantage of a “rush to head” bet. Being lucky once doesn’t make you a prophet.
Hi Steve
Really enjoy your site. You could have carried off your bet by claiming it was made in $US terms. The $A fell by over 30% against the $US in 2008 and property prices fell 5% to 10% so under these terms you won the bet.
I am pretty neutral on the whole property prices thing but I find it hard to comprehend that people claim the FHOG over inflated property prices. People need to consider that without the 21k FHOG that 119k houses would not have been built. How does less supply translate into lower prices in a market where capacity does’nt meet demand.
Hi Steve, ‘Citydoc’ is right, your theory about it being obscure in order to draw people to ask enquire more is poor practise.
The idea that you will generate more enquiry this way
I believe is quite misplaced.
Have the graphs if you will, but have the ‘message’ clearly legible and the T shirts ‘will do a broarder overall job’ for you and you won’t lose the detailed enquiry you seek.
Hi Steve,
I would be interested in your response to Peter Schiff’s explanation here of how student loans in the US are the main reason that student costs are so high.
I have the impression you would be in favour of more government support for students, but would you agree that making more cheap loans (hecs) available would simply allow the universities to charge more ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXbbam141zk#t=31s
I’m still trying to work out what I think given you and the Austrians describe the problems so similarly and the solutions so differently
Cheers
Sam Howley
I’d like to add my vote for a design that does not obscure the message.
It will come across as a childish attempt to comply with the literal terms of the bet without complying with the spirit.
This is precisely the kind of thing that Robertson and Joye would do, in their typical schoolboy mode of operation. I’d hate to see you stoop to their level.
There’s no reason to obscure and nothing to be ashamed of, you will be right in the end, and really, people should ask you why prices have kept rising because I believe you have better answers than 99.9% of the population.
Prof Keen,
I must add my vote against the obscured versions. No matter how sound your reasoning, it will be completely lost in the 3-second sound bite and make you look childish and a sore loser. The spruikers will maximise this impact to trash your reputation as much as possible. Best to maintain the intellectual high ground.
May I suggest something a little more blunt and clear:
“I was hopelessly wrong on house prices: Ask me how…”
“… the government is using your tax dollars to send us further into debt.”
My initial temptation is to put the second part of the message on the back of the t-shirt but this wouldn’t work when viewed on TV so it all probably has to go on the front.
Your main message has always been debt. If you stick with this message and maintain house prices as a side-effect then you may start to get through to more and more people out there. If you let the focus remain on house prices then you’re fighting powerful vested interests on their home turf.
Anyway, with debt, you have current data on your side. Housing debt has been falling for the last 4 months, indicating that deleveraging is just starting to take hold.
OK everyone,
Take the point. How about I add one with the words clearly shown, but with answers to the question shown graphically as well?
I’ll post some options today, but some suggestions would also be appreciated.
I must admit to some animosity propelling my somewhat out of character behaviour here. I didn’t appreciate being ambushed, nor did I enjoy attempting to clarify my position afterwards–about the timing of 10-15 years–and realising that this would be twisted as me trying to back out of the bet; and the clincher was agreeing to a set of questions (with property as the last two of seven) in an accidental debate with Rory on Switzer’s program, only to have him throw property in at question 1 instead.
Let the market decide, Steve. Have confused and obvious printing, and wear the design(s) that sells the most.
I thought these comments at the gold convention in Toronto about the dollar and gold were pretty interesting, especially coming from a gold mining CEO:
http://www.goldalert.com/gold-stocks.php#gold_between_$1,000_&_$1,200_in_2010?
Steve
I think the debt/GDP graph (#2 shirt) should be used with the phrase IWW…AMH inserted with an arrow at the 2008 point on the graph. Then extend the graph as a dotted line to the next 15 years which of course heads down again as we delever and have another caption here such as ‘wrong on exact timing not direction’.
Another bit of text somewhere on the shirt needs to link leverage as the main causal factor of high house prices.
Steve,
I think that the best thing is to comply with the conditions of the bet without any fiddling… and move on. Otherwise the message you want to deliver will be obscured and you will be painted as dishonest in the media.
This is exactly what RE lobbyists want to do – to provoke you again, get personal and drag you into the endless discussions about the irrelevant details. I would go a bit further. If you want to complete your mission you must not have any bad feelings towards these people even if some of them (these who pull the strings from behind) deserve to be called dishonest and will use whatever ad hominem arguments they can invent. It is all about the ideas not about people.
I would place the graph showing the impact of the HOGs (from the first “old” t-shirt) below the sentence “I was hopelessly wrong on house prices: Ask me how…” written with plain letters.
These graphs lifted from Bill’s blog superimposed with the house prices graphs are good as well. I would extend back the x axis to 2006.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Australia_housing_activity_Jan_2010.jpg
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Australia_housing_activity_Jan_2010.jpg
The simpler design the better.
Pragmatist,
It is much worse than you thought. Not only taxpayers dollars were used to prop up the market but these dollars were multiplied by private borrowing of naive people betting on ever rising house prices. I remember the house buying frenzy in my office.
Anyway the “POP!” moment may have finally arrived… wait for more hogs running wild.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/investors-fear-bubble-will-pop-20100310-pz8q.html
One more thing. I would spell the name of the summit as Mt Kosciuszko rather than Kosciousko. “sz” sounds like “sh” in Polish.
His surname is spelled “Ko?ciuszko” in Poland. In fact it is a Belorussian surname. (Sorry I didn’t want to offend any “proper” Poles…)
Steve
I like your ideas and I think that obscuring the message like you have is the best approach as people such as Rory and Joye cannot use it to further manipulate the public. You have to be careful not to put anything out there that the media can quickly focus on and that will link to you indefinitely otherwise the real message is obscured. Go for your first approach.
Nothing wrong with a bit of animosity!!!
Catho
Prof Keen,
Unfortunately I think that all of your graphs are too complicated for the main audience of your t-shirt. The main audience is not those who join you on the walk, it’s the people watching a 3-second snippet on the TV news or seeing a photo in the paper. They will generally not have the time, interest or ability to interpret a graph where they can’t read the title, scales or other “small print” information. They may read a few words of bold text but a graph will be ignored.
Luckily for you, the phrasing of the required words allows for a second part to be added. Here you can put in a few key words; debt, tax, government, timing. Any of these will start to have an impact on those who see photos or video of you wearing the t-shirt.
Graphs on the back of the shirt could be effective because that will only be seen directly but the front is the best billboard you will ever get for your message so I think it needs to be clear.
Steve,
At #15 you mentioned,
“I must admit to some animosity propelling my somewhat out of character behaviour here. I didn’t appreciate being ambushed, nor did I enjoy attempting to clarify my position afterwards–about the timing of 10-15 years–and realising that this would be twisted as me trying to back out of the bet; and the clincher was agreeing to a set of questions (with property as the last two of seven) in an accidental debate with Rory on Switzer’s program, only to have him throw property in at question 1 instead.”
Quite frankly, I really don’t think anyone really gives a f**k what Rory Robertson, Chris Joye, Michael “Wacko” Pascoe and the like say or do. All of these cheerleaders have screwed up previously in terms of economic assessment, opinion and forecasts. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they get it wrong. It comes with the territory. They all know that.
For example, when the Aussie dollar was approx USD$0.62 during the GFC, I can still remember Bill Evans from Westpac saying that it would fall to US$0.54 “in the coming weeks”. We all know what happened with that crap prediction. Also, there was never any song and dance about it.
And with your walk and your T-shirts, try and follow the KISSS rule with the media. Keep it short, simple and snappy. Also put a simple web address on the FRONT of your T-shirt or have someone holding the Keen web address placard behind you in any interview. Remember the media are like sharks and like to see some blood in the water. A typical T-Shirt, with no graphs, could read:
“I was hopelessly wrong on house prices”
“Because the government has put you further in debt”
keenwalk.com.au
Finally, don’t take it to heart about what Rory et al have done. Use the walk to try and turn the tables on them to show them up. They ain’t really your friends at the end of the day, more like smiling assassins.
Anyway enjoy the walk.
Steve,
would have to agree with Pragmatist (comment 22). You need to know your audience. The people watching the 6 o’clock news on commericial TV don’t care about the background to the bet you had and the fact that you were ambushed, etc. So drop the pedantry. You have perhaps one chance to get your message across. Clarity will be better. Your key message is too much private sector debt. Express that. Scare people, then maybe, just maybe, you can be a factor in changing behaviours. You have plenty of other avenues (such as this blog) to go into the finer points.
Keep up the good work! I admire your courage.
Catho,
“I was hopelessly wrong on house prices: Ask me how…”
The answer is simple:
“The Government rigged the market by triggering the first home owner grant frenzy. The borrowed money stimulated the economy and pushed up the prices. Now first home buyers have to repay the debt and the prices will fall anyway”.
Going personal is not only counterproductive but it may be dangerous for Steve.
These guys will be the hitmen. They know how to do the dirty job. Good luck – we deserve this. Go Barnaby…
http://barnabyisright.com/