Back in the Olde Days, before the global financial crisis, when I was one of a handful raising the alarm, some of the most strident opposition to my opinion about what this might mean for housing in Australia came from Christopher Joye (who was then a Director at Rismark). We went head to head on many occasions, with me arguing that our prices were a debt-fuelled bubble, and Joye arguing that rising house prices simply reflected rising household incomes.
There are very few people who qualify as unforgettable in your life, and Ted Wilshire was one of those for me. A larger than life character in every sense of the word, Ted was best known as the Research Officer for the Australian Metal Workers Union (AMWU) who penned the then-influential pamphlets Australia Ripped Off and Australia Uprooted in the days prior to The Accord under the Hawke and Keating Governments.
A critique of a yet-to-be-published paper of mine (“Loanable Funds, Endogenous Money and Aggregate Demand”, forthcoming in the Review of Keynesian Economics later this year; the link is to a partial blog post of that paper) by non-mainstream economist Tom Palley reminds me of one of my favourite ripostes by a politician, back in the days before spin doctors stopped them saying anything offensive — or indeed anything interesting.
As Sir Robert Menzies, former Australian prime minister and leader of the conservative Liberal Party, was giving a campaign speech in 1954, a heckler called out “Mr Menzies, I wouldn’t vote for you if you were the Archangel Gabriel”. Menzies shot back: “Madam, if I were the Archangel Gabriel, you would not be in my constituency.”
My call a few weeks ago that the global financial crisis is over was very much an Anglo-centric one, and a US-centric one in particular (Closing the door on the GFC, March 10).
Europe’s continuing own goal from the euro and austerity, and credit excesses in emerging economies, could still derail a global recovery. But the epicentre of the crisis was the US, and the indications are solid there that this particular ‘Minsky moment’ is behind it.
I have been to so many countries in the last decade that my carbon footprint is Yeti-size. But one country I haven’t been to for 32 years is the one I’m in now: China.
What a difference three decades makes: my visit in 1981–82 coincided with the trial of the Gang of Four; now many sub-25 Chinese think that must be the name of a new boy band they yet haven’t heard of.
A couple of weeks ago I took a swipe at Bank of England over a speech by its Governor Mark Carney that was unrealistic about the dangers of a bloated financial sector (Godzilla is good for you? March 3). Today I’m doing the opposite: I’m doffing my cap to the researchers at Threadneedle Street for a new paper “Money creation in the modern economy,” which gives a truly realistic explanation of how money is created, why this really matters, and why virtually everything that economic textbooks say about money is wrong.
(At least for the Anglo zone; more on Europe and Emerging Markets in coming weeks).
One of the ironies of the economic crisis that began in late 2007 is that the best acronym for it — the “GFC” for “global financial crisis” — was coined in the one country that suffered the least from it, Australia. The year 2014 is the seventh of the “GFC” (the panic began on August 9, 2007, when BNP Paribas shut down three of its subprime-based funds), but at last the majority of economic reports are of sustained if anaemic growth, rather than of bank failures and recession. Australia’s reported growth rate for 2013 of 2.8 per cent follows the UK reporting 1.9 per cent and the US 2.4 per cent; even the EU, where several countries are still mired in outright Depressions, recorded an overall growth rate of 0.1 per cent for 2013.
The bigger the financial sector gets, the more it can destroy. And Bank of England Governor Mark Carney’s vision of British banks nine times the size of GDP is positively terrifying…
Fans of Japanese schlock fiction will be pleased to know that that old mega-favourite Godzilla is returning in 2014, to stomp on simulated cities in a cinema near you. And of course, he’s bigger and better: the original Japanese movie had him at about 50–100 metres and weighing 20–60,000 tons; I’d guess he was about twice that size in the 1998 US remake; and by the looks of the trailer for the 2014 movie, he’s now a couple of kilometres tall and probably weighs in the millions.
The penultimate Windows version of Minsky (released a few days ago) inadvertently installed an old kernel with a very low execution speed. This has been fixed in the latest version. If you downloaded a few days ago and now find that models run very slowly, please download the latest version today (it has the same name: Minsky.1.D32). If you downloaded before then, the execution speed will be fine, but a few bugs have also been fixed in this release: see Tickets for the details (from my perspective, the main bug was a failure to pass LaTeX formatting codes between Godley Tables).
Permanent link to this post
(102 words, estimated 24 secs reading time)
Last week I satirised Australia’s outmoded belief that the rate of interest can be used to fine tune the economy. This belief was ensconced in the so-called “Taylor Rule”, which accurately described what central banks tended to do until the economic crisis hit in 2007. That rule saw the inflation rate and the unemployment rate as the two key economic indicators, and the interest rate as the key mechanism needed to achieve an acceptable balance between them.
Of course, the crisis blew that rule out of the water, and issues that central bankers once dismissed as unimportant — like, for example, asset price bubbles or the level of private debt — suddenly had to be discussed.