The Possum at his web site has an interesting series on housing – lots of ideas, thoughts and comments on display.
I do like the fact Poss that you have gone “out there” and offered your thoughts and ideas - but my sense of it is that the time for properly managed policy responses has long gone. Now we are in unchartered waters - the housing market has a life of it’s own and “policy” - is pretty much redundant.
A major factor influencing house prices is “emotion” - how else to explain the fact that for at least three years the “punters” have been buying houses at seriously overvalued prices.
The OECD have been saying for at least those three years that OZ house prices are 50% overvalued. It might be that *some* of us are deaf but the rest of us have been in denial. The truth is that we have been paying too much because we think that we will be bailed out - either by the banks or by government.
Perhaps that should be re-phrased as - we think that we will make a serious killing while other punters keep buying and paying too much. And in the event that the music stops - then we will be looking for someone to bail us out - because isn't that what always happens?
And the reason is because that is the expectation and the history of the place. When was the last time that Joe punter had to wear the consequences of his decisions? Greed is a powerful emotion and greedy punters think that they will be saved from their own stupidity - by *someone* - often a taxpayer.
And in truth it will likely happen. Because we have been pouring our spare cash into non-productive housing investment and not into real business activity, we have come to believe that this is all OK.
My sense is that we are about to find out how the “market” works - and some of those folks who were flashing around someone else’s money will end up in deep doo-doo.
The question is - “do we save them from their own stupidity”? Or “do we let the market perform it’s function”?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Adelaide Traffic - Is anyone listening?
I wrote about this last year - but obviously no-one was listening - probably time to regurgitate it.
Many years ago when I was a conscript we had a saying about the mission of the Australian Army - it was “Hurry up and wait”. That seemed to be the single thing that drove the place and which all conscripts could identify with - we had to rush to get somewhere and then we had to wait.
Well it seems that Adelaide has adopted the theme.
The local traffic management system was obviously designed to keep people waiting in the city. It’s a stop start system that seems intent on wasting time and money. Progress through Adelaide is a series of small steps from intersection to intersection - each followed by an excruciating wait for the signals to change to green so we can continue to the next - only to approach and get the dreaded red light.
Some think this was designed to slow us down - but did anyone calculate the impact in terms of fuel and pollution cost and wasted time?
A simple analysis shows that the cost of the Adelaide traffic management system in wasted time, fuel and pollution is around $1 billion annually. The cost of fixing the system is also large but using new and smart technology, it is likely to be less than $100 million. The benefit/cost ratio is compelling – so why won’t the state fix it?
Good question – the answer is because the state has become dependent on red light, speed camera and other penalty revenues which are designed to exploit the dysfunctional system. It’s about exploiting traps and is a Catch 22.
These revenues are generating huge monthly income for the state and that is something Messrs. Rann, Foley and Co. have come to rely on. Is it sustainable?
Never mind the poor old motorist - why isn’t the business community up in arms? It’s a standing joke with interstate visitors. The worst thing is that it’s been like this for over 30 years - and no-one locally seems to have noticed.
Zzzzzz.
Many years ago when I was a conscript we had a saying about the mission of the Australian Army - it was “Hurry up and wait”. That seemed to be the single thing that drove the place and which all conscripts could identify with - we had to rush to get somewhere and then we had to wait.
Well it seems that Adelaide has adopted the theme.
The local traffic management system was obviously designed to keep people waiting in the city. It’s a stop start system that seems intent on wasting time and money. Progress through Adelaide is a series of small steps from intersection to intersection - each followed by an excruciating wait for the signals to change to green so we can continue to the next - only to approach and get the dreaded red light.
Some think this was designed to slow us down - but did anyone calculate the impact in terms of fuel and pollution cost and wasted time?
A simple analysis shows that the cost of the Adelaide traffic management system in wasted time, fuel and pollution is around $1 billion annually. The cost of fixing the system is also large but using new and smart technology, it is likely to be less than $100 million. The benefit/cost ratio is compelling – so why won’t the state fix it?
Good question – the answer is because the state has become dependent on red light, speed camera and other penalty revenues which are designed to exploit the dysfunctional system. It’s about exploiting traps and is a Catch 22.
These revenues are generating huge monthly income for the state and that is something Messrs. Rann, Foley and Co. have come to rely on. Is it sustainable?
Never mind the poor old motorist - why isn’t the business community up in arms? It’s a standing joke with interstate visitors. The worst thing is that it’s been like this for over 30 years - and no-one locally seems to have noticed.
Zzzzzz.
I am just getting in early
I know that we aren't yet in the FOOTBALL season but frankly I find the local obsession rather disturbing.
People need to be entertained - but local entertainment has become almost exclusively the AFL brand of FOOTBALL!!
AFL marketing folks have done a great job at exploiting locals and promoting their product. The trouble is that outsiders look at the place and think - Why?
Excuse me - but how can anyone obsess about their “Footy Tips”? The truth is that the local obsession with football just demonstrates that nothing of much substance happens here - there is no depth, no breadth and no alternatives.
Football is the “filler” that occupies time between work and family. Most developed states and nations exploit a variety of “fillers” - often including a form of football but also other sports and other cultural activities. From a cultural perspective it seems unhealthy to focus on just one filler - and limiting the depth and breadth of experience that results from a diverse activity set.
I sat through a boring lunch recently where the ONLY topic of conversation was the Crows, Port Power and their likely progress against the dreaded Victorians. Excuse me but this is a joke - how can we expect the world to take SA seriously when our single topic of conversation is football - what about the big issues facing us - why don’t they get a mention? Do we even know what they are? Probably not.
So we need to find cultural activities that will enhance the “filler” experiences of South Australians - and promote diversity. The good news is that there are lots on offer - lets use the clout of the State more effectively to promote healthy alternatives that exploit the natural advantages of the place.
People need to be entertained - but local entertainment has become almost exclusively the AFL brand of FOOTBALL!!
AFL marketing folks have done a great job at exploiting locals and promoting their product. The trouble is that outsiders look at the place and think - Why?
Excuse me - but how can anyone obsess about their “Footy Tips”? The truth is that the local obsession with football just demonstrates that nothing of much substance happens here - there is no depth, no breadth and no alternatives.
Football is the “filler” that occupies time between work and family. Most developed states and nations exploit a variety of “fillers” - often including a form of football but also other sports and other cultural activities. From a cultural perspective it seems unhealthy to focus on just one filler - and limiting the depth and breadth of experience that results from a diverse activity set.
I sat through a boring lunch recently where the ONLY topic of conversation was the Crows, Port Power and their likely progress against the dreaded Victorians. Excuse me but this is a joke - how can we expect the world to take SA seriously when our single topic of conversation is football - what about the big issues facing us - why don’t they get a mention? Do we even know what they are? Probably not.
So we need to find cultural activities that will enhance the “filler” experiences of South Australians - and promote diversity. The good news is that there are lots on offer - lets use the clout of the State more effectively to promote healthy alternatives that exploit the natural advantages of the place.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Oh - how the worm turns
Prior to November 24th, the Liberal party was so out of touch on climate change that one of their most informed insiders – Guy Pearce felt compelled to blow the whistle in his book – High and Dry. Here is an extract from Guy’s website.
“Paul Keating put it well on November 27th: ‘Saturday night's victory was not just a victory for the Labor Party; it was also a victory for those Liberals like Malcolm Fraser, Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan, who stood against the pernicious erosion of decent standards in our public affairs.’ No-where was the erosion of decent standards more pernicious than in the Howard government’s response to climate change. For over a decade, in the face of the greatest threat humanity has seen, the short term interests of a handful of this country’s worst greenhouse polluting industries were put ahead of the interests of the planet, the country and future generations. It will come to be viewed as the most shameful aspect of the Howard legacy.”
But the quite amazing thing is how the “new” Liberal party under Brendon Nelson has also backflipped and are now “climate change” friendly. Listening to the ABC Breakfast program this morning I almost choked on my weeties – here is an extract.
“The Federal Coalition has come out in support of the crucial part of the Bali road map -- the encouragement of developed nations to attempt, as a group, to reduce emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020. So are we seeing the beginning of a major shift from the Coalition on climate change? The surprising announcement was made by new shadow environment spokesman Greg Hunt, who joined Breakfast to discuss the federal opposition's new policies on climate change.”
The serious question though is: “what will become of all those people who blindly supported the Howard agenda and actually believed that he knew something about the subject?” He created a small army of deniers who have now blindly followed their leader over the cliff like lemmings – just as we thought they would. Even now we can still see the odd “rusted on” sending petulant missives to “The Australian” in the vain hope that it is all a bad dream and soon things will return to normal.
For those who are interested in a little hilarity I recommend the letters page of the ex Government Gazette on a few occasions a week, when one is feeling a little low.
“Paul Keating put it well on November 27th: ‘Saturday night's victory was not just a victory for the Labor Party; it was also a victory for those Liberals like Malcolm Fraser, Petro Georgiou and Judi Moylan, who stood against the pernicious erosion of decent standards in our public affairs.’ No-where was the erosion of decent standards more pernicious than in the Howard government’s response to climate change. For over a decade, in the face of the greatest threat humanity has seen, the short term interests of a handful of this country’s worst greenhouse polluting industries were put ahead of the interests of the planet, the country and future generations. It will come to be viewed as the most shameful aspect of the Howard legacy.”
But the quite amazing thing is how the “new” Liberal party under Brendon Nelson has also backflipped and are now “climate change” friendly. Listening to the ABC Breakfast program this morning I almost choked on my weeties – here is an extract.
“The Federal Coalition has come out in support of the crucial part of the Bali road map -- the encouragement of developed nations to attempt, as a group, to reduce emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020. So are we seeing the beginning of a major shift from the Coalition on climate change? The surprising announcement was made by new shadow environment spokesman Greg Hunt, who joined Breakfast to discuss the federal opposition's new policies on climate change.”
The serious question though is: “what will become of all those people who blindly supported the Howard agenda and actually believed that he knew something about the subject?” He created a small army of deniers who have now blindly followed their leader over the cliff like lemmings – just as we thought they would. Even now we can still see the odd “rusted on” sending petulant missives to “The Australian” in the vain hope that it is all a bad dream and soon things will return to normal.
For those who are interested in a little hilarity I recommend the letters page of the ex Government Gazette on a few occasions a week, when one is feeling a little low.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Finally - A Competent Government
It might be that my relatives will not hold the same view that I do but I am personally very happy with our new Government.
For the first time in a decade we have a government, executive and ministers that are acting in the interest of the nation – instead of their own narrow self important agenda.
For the first time in a decade we have a Prime Minister who – is actually participating at a significant climate change meeting – and who is pressing Australia’s position and interests in a way that will ensure change while taking account of our interests, the bigger picture and a global agenda.
For the first time in a decade we have substantial intellect at the helm of our Government and that makes me feel good. Actually better than good – it makes me feel great.
We now have substantial, quality leadership and that can only result in good outcomes. It took a decade to get there but it did happen – a big relief for thinking Australians who thought the nation had been hi-jacked by bigotry, ignorance and self interest.
For the first time in a decade we have a government, executive and ministers that are acting in the interest of the nation – instead of their own narrow self important agenda.
For the first time in a decade we have a Prime Minister who – is actually participating at a significant climate change meeting – and who is pressing Australia’s position and interests in a way that will ensure change while taking account of our interests, the bigger picture and a global agenda.
For the first time in a decade we have substantial intellect at the helm of our Government and that makes me feel good. Actually better than good – it makes me feel great.
We now have substantial, quality leadership and that can only result in good outcomes. It took a decade to get there but it did happen – a big relief for thinking Australians who thought the nation had been hi-jacked by bigotry, ignorance and self interest.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Thank you Maxine and Kevin
It’s Monday 26th November, the sky is blue and the birds are singing - not much more to say really.
I was in downtown Adelaide this morning and there is a real buzz in the air. The place is busier than it has been for months - people were cheerful and chatty and it seemed to me as though the dark veil of the last decade had been lifted. There is a real vibe - a refreshing newness about the place - finally.
Thank you Maxine and Kevin.
I was in downtown Adelaide this morning and there is a real buzz in the air. The place is busier than it has been for months - people were cheerful and chatty and it seemed to me as though the dark veil of the last decade had been lifted. There is a real vibe - a refreshing newness about the place - finally.
Thank you Maxine and Kevin.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
35% of nothing is still SFA
Following on from my previous post about the Libs “rusted on” cheer squad being around 35% of the vote at Federal elections - here is some more.
As background, we know that over the past 20+ years the Coalition had a minimum primary vote of 35%. Psephologist - Possum has suggested that this 35% is the “rusted on” support base of the Coalition.
My question is - why is it so high?
It clearly can’t be because Coalition governments are always the same - because they have been demonstrably different over the past few decades. A bit of history.
In 1975 Malcolm Fraser was elected Prime Minister - he was then head of the Liberal party and formed a Coalition government with the Nationals. At the time this government was seen as conservative but not overly so and certainly not spectacular in any way. It was seen as a safe, relatively risk free government - albeit one that took few chances. It was middle of the road and at the time I remember thinking who cares. And mostly, no-one did.
Then in 1983 the Coalition lost to Labor’s Bob Hawke - arguably this was the most radical change in government in a generation - even given the Labor experiment between 1972 and 1975 with Gough Whitlam - but that’s another story.
It says a lot about the Australian people that they chose a Labor government in 1983 after many decades of conservative Coalition rule. Clearly the nation needed a change - and it got one. Hawke and his Treasurer Paul Keating were a breath of fresh air. Along with the rest of the Ministry they embarked on a hectic program of reform to ensure that Australia caught up with the rest of the world. Eventually Keating became Prime Minister - but the reform agenda never really slowed and was still underway in 1996 when the Coalition re-gained control.
In 1996 the baton passed to the conservative Coalition and Liberal leader John Howard. By that time the Keating government was tired - having been in power for 13 years. The early Howard years were unspectacular - even reformist in a minor way. The Port Arthur massacre allowed the new Prime Minister to undertake a gun buy back which was well received. There was even reluctant agreement when he introduced the GST in 2000 - the necessary Hawke-Keating reform agenda seemed to be continuing.
But that’s when something happened and it all stopped - toward the end of 2001. Of course 9/11 was the catalyst for an inward focus on security matters but nothing else even remotely reformist happened until after the 2004 election when WorkChoices suddenly appeared unannounced.
Australians had become relaxed and comfortable and then all of a sudden they discovered that their government was intent on shafting them. Now of course we know what actually happened - Howard became lazy and complacent, he was focussed on sucking up to George Bush - took his eye off the ball and big business took control of government.
And now we are in 2007 in the final days of an election campaign - between Howard and Rudd - who do you think deserves to win?
Anyway, my main point is that the Coalition is not a static thing - over the last 20+ years it has been a very different experience - mostly depending on who was Leader. We can’t just assume that it is a benign thing that is interested in looking after the interests of Australians. An important perspective is that in 2007 even Malcolm Fraser is critical of the Howard government.
The truth is that the Coalition was once quite harmless. In the Malcolm Fraser years it was benign and it didn’t do too much damage. But in the Howard years it has abrogated its responsibility to big business and has allowed them to screw the Australian people - big time. It is now further to the right than Genghis Khan.
So it might be that 35% of the voters still support the Coalition - but my guess is that this is because they are not yet paying attention. One day they will wake up to discover that their beloved Coalition is actually a rabid dog. Let’s hope that they get the message before it gives them rabies.
As background, we know that over the past 20+ years the Coalition had a minimum primary vote of 35%. Psephologist - Possum has suggested that this 35% is the “rusted on” support base of the Coalition.
My question is - why is it so high?
It clearly can’t be because Coalition governments are always the same - because they have been demonstrably different over the past few decades. A bit of history.
In 1975 Malcolm Fraser was elected Prime Minister - he was then head of the Liberal party and formed a Coalition government with the Nationals. At the time this government was seen as conservative but not overly so and certainly not spectacular in any way. It was seen as a safe, relatively risk free government - albeit one that took few chances. It was middle of the road and at the time I remember thinking who cares. And mostly, no-one did.
Then in 1983 the Coalition lost to Labor’s Bob Hawke - arguably this was the most radical change in government in a generation - even given the Labor experiment between 1972 and 1975 with Gough Whitlam - but that’s another story.
It says a lot about the Australian people that they chose a Labor government in 1983 after many decades of conservative Coalition rule. Clearly the nation needed a change - and it got one. Hawke and his Treasurer Paul Keating were a breath of fresh air. Along with the rest of the Ministry they embarked on a hectic program of reform to ensure that Australia caught up with the rest of the world. Eventually Keating became Prime Minister - but the reform agenda never really slowed and was still underway in 1996 when the Coalition re-gained control.
In 1996 the baton passed to the conservative Coalition and Liberal leader John Howard. By that time the Keating government was tired - having been in power for 13 years. The early Howard years were unspectacular - even reformist in a minor way. The Port Arthur massacre allowed the new Prime Minister to undertake a gun buy back which was well received. There was even reluctant agreement when he introduced the GST in 2000 - the necessary Hawke-Keating reform agenda seemed to be continuing.
But that’s when something happened and it all stopped - toward the end of 2001. Of course 9/11 was the catalyst for an inward focus on security matters but nothing else even remotely reformist happened until after the 2004 election when WorkChoices suddenly appeared unannounced.
Australians had become relaxed and comfortable and then all of a sudden they discovered that their government was intent on shafting them. Now of course we know what actually happened - Howard became lazy and complacent, he was focussed on sucking up to George Bush - took his eye off the ball and big business took control of government.
And now we are in 2007 in the final days of an election campaign - between Howard and Rudd - who do you think deserves to win?
Anyway, my main point is that the Coalition is not a static thing - over the last 20+ years it has been a very different experience - mostly depending on who was Leader. We can’t just assume that it is a benign thing that is interested in looking after the interests of Australians. An important perspective is that in 2007 even Malcolm Fraser is critical of the Howard government.
The truth is that the Coalition was once quite harmless. In the Malcolm Fraser years it was benign and it didn’t do too much damage. But in the Howard years it has abrogated its responsibility to big business and has allowed them to screw the Australian people - big time. It is now further to the right than Genghis Khan.
So it might be that 35% of the voters still support the Coalition - but my guess is that this is because they are not yet paying attention. One day they will wake up to discover that their beloved Coalition is actually a rabid dog. Let’s hope that they get the message before it gives them rabies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
