Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 13
Steve Keen: Australian house prices to fall 20% "peak to trough" by end of 2013; House price hit yet to come
Topic Started: 20 Oct 2011, 12:43 PM (18,382 Views)
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
House price hit yet to come

Published 7:45 AM, 20 Oct 2011 Last update 10:35 AM, 20 Oct 2011

University of Western Sydney associate professor of economics and finance Steve Keen explains why:

– Australian house prices are set to fall 20 per cent by the end of 2013

– There's no sense trying to recapitalise European banks if they maintain current levels of debt, and wide-scale debt abolition is the way to go

– The current global debt crisis will take ten to 20 years to resolve

– The Reserve Bank's inflation policy is inadequate

– Decelerating debt has placed the Australian economy on a knife-edge, with positive jobs data a blip in a downward trend

* This interview was conducted by Business Spectator's Amber Plum on October 17.

Amber Plum: Steve, you’ve just launched a second version of your book, Debunking Economics. Why the need for another one?

Steve Keen: Two reasons. One is that since I wrote the last I’ve expanded the critique that I’ve written of neoclassical economics and added a substantial amount of potential alternative paradigm to economics. Secondly, a large part of the motivation for writing the first edition of the book was the belief that the serious economic crisis was not too far in the future and of course when the crisis hit in 2005, I focused my work on warning about it and then slowly developing a stronger analysis of it. Now is the time to put the two together.

AP: What’s the biggest flaw you saw in the response to the GFC?

SK: One thing I satirise in the new edition is the speech that Obama made back in August 2009 explaining his policy response, a large part of which of course was to drastically beef up the amount of money in the reserve accounts of the banking sector. In typical Obama-speak, he said ‘a lot of Americans are complaining to me that the money is going to the banks rather than them'.

He said, and this is virtually a direct quote, 'the truth is that an extra dollar in the banking system generates eight or ten more dollars of loans, therefore kick-starting economic activity by giving us more bang for our buck'. That’s a fallacy. It’s based on the neoclassical theory of how money is created called the money multiplier which argues you have to have reserves before banks can lend.

The reality is that when banks lend they create deposits at the same time and they get the reserves later, and this has been known empirically for about 50 years by people who actually follow empirical data – which does not include the vast majority of neoclassical macroeconomists.

When you put that money in the reserve account of the banking sector, it stays there because what’s actually happened is they’ve slowed down their rate of lending, people who are in debt are paying their debt back more rapidly, so the reserve is actually drastically accelerated. But very little additional lending occurs, and you have very little effect from putting that money into the system.

On the other hand if you gave that money to the debtors, giving it directly to the firms that are in debt or to households and saying please spend this money, that circulates much more rapidly. That’s something I actually modelled in using both the new macroeconomic systems I’ve devised and are included in the book as well.

If you look at what would happen with, say, an economy worth roughly a trillion dollars and an injection of a hundred billion dollars one year after a crisis begins, you do get about three times as much bang for your buck by giving it to the households than giving it to the banks. So, Obama effectively wasted two thirds of the money he gave to the banking sector – if he’s lucky. In fact, that’s probably an underestimation.

AP: What implications does this have for the debate around Europe’s bank recapitalisation and liquidity issues?

SK: There’s no sense trying to recapitalise the banks if you are also trying to maintain the debt they have currently issued and continue having the debtors have to repay that debt. If they’re talking about instead doing what’s now happening with Greece where they’re going to abolish about 50 per cent of the debt, that’s much more sensible. Basically the amount of money which was generated by lending activity of the banks was most drastically excessive. They made a mistake and they basically have to wear the consequences of it and that therefore means writing off the debt.

The trouble is it’s also being compliant with an austerity program and the trouble about the austerity program is that that itself bites back on itself by reducing the cash flows that are then needed to pay the government sector, and in fact the end result of an austerity program is that often the budget deficit gets worse rather than better. I would be in favour of wide-scale debt abolition, guaranteeing depositors funds at the same time, putting in mechanisms to mean that people who are genuine savers didn’t get disadvantaged from the whole thing. Fundamentally, it would be a dramatic shift in the proportion of money that was effectively credit money across to being effectively fiat money instead.

AP: What size of a shift are you talking about?

SK: If the finance sector was doing what it should be doing, which is simply providing working capital for the non-bank financial sector and businesses and innovation funds for entrepreneurs and so on, in an American case it would mean reducing the size of the finance sector by a factor of four or five. It’s literally that much too big. Of course it would mean large numbers of finance brokers, finance advisers, bank staff, would be out of a job and I’d be shot for it, but the reality is over time that’s going to happen anyway and I’d just be bringing it on more suddenly. But I’d be blamed for causing it.

AP: What timeframe do you have in mind?

SK: It’ll take about one or two decades. If you look at the level of debt that caused the Great Depression, then it began at about 175 per cent of GDP, where the vast majority of that was owed by businesses. The business sector debt was about a 125 per cent of GDP I think when the crisis began. The rest was household and a trivial amount of debt, believe it or not, was actually owed by the non-bank financial sector, the shadow banking sector as we call it now. But the aggregate level was a 175 per cent of GDP in America. This time it peaked at 300 per cent, so we are that much more in debt.

Now, getting out of the debt bubble of the Great Depression the Second World War took 15 years effectively from the peak levels of debt prior to fall back to low levels of debt once more for the private sector and that then restarted the whole system once more. I’m not being too much of a pessimist to put something of the order of one or two decades on how long it’ll take us to get through it this time.

AP: In layman’s terms, can you explain what’s new in your second book?

SK: In the first edition of the book, one of the chapters, talked about the neoclassical theory of competition. It basically supports small competitive firms and criticises monopoly and the argument behind it goes that if you have competitive firms, demand will be equal to supply and the price level will give you a low price at a high volume of output. Whereas if you have monopolies, they’ll set where marginal cost is equal to marginal revenue which is lower than price and you’ll have a higher price, lower level of output.

I wrote up a logical critique of this in the first edition. That caused an absolute fracas and as the neoclassical economists attacked me all over the globe, I went further into the mathematics and basically proved that their idea about what was profit maximising behaviour was false.

Probably the most important thing in the book though is a better explanation for a condition which goes by the incredibly complicated name Sonnenschein Mantel Debreu conditions. That explains that if you have a market consisting of lots of individual consumers whose behaviour all obeys what economists call the law of demand – which means that they’ve got downward sliding demand curves, so if you decrease price they’ll demand more of the product – if you add them up, you can have a market demand curve that can have any shape at all. It can look like a squiggly line. And I explain that critique in much more detail and much more clearly in the second edition than I did in the first, using what is known in mathematics as a proof by contradiction. It basically proves that you can’t even use supply and demand analysis for a single market, let alone an entire economy, so it just invalidates the foundation of neoclassical economics. And ironically this particular problem was discovered by neoclassical economists.

And of course the irony and the reason why they missed the global financial crisis so completely is over the last twenty or thirty years they’ve managed to redefine macroeconomics as being applied microeconomics and that is actually not possible.

AP: What does this mean for the Reserve Bank’s inflation controls?

SK: They’ve got a model of the economy that is almost but not completely totally unlike the economy in which we live. So they’re obsessing about the rate of inflation. In Lucy Ellis’s recent speech – the platypus speech – she argued that there is no need to have a target for the ratio of debt to GDP. That’s because their model doesn’t include the impact of private debt on aggregate demand. When you include the fact, as I do, that growth in debt finances the increase in aggregate demand, then not only does the ratio of debt to GDP matter, but the change in that ratio also matters.

If we had an economics model that said the level of private debt compared with GDP is an important economic indicator and should not be allowed to grow exponentially – let alone get past some set level, then we would have addressed this crisis in Australia’s case back in the early ‘70s.

Instead we let the level of debt go from 25 per cent of GDP back in 1965 to 160 per cent last year and that’s a more than six-fold increase in the level of debt to GDP. The growth in that ratio gave us an apparent boom at various times in the last 40 years, but the reality was it was a Ponzi system fundamentally and we’ve let a Ponzi scheme grow that big in the Australian economy and now we’re paying the consequences for it with the crisis in which we’re in.

AP: Wayne Swan is very firm that there is no crisis, in fact the opposite – we have strong terms of trade, our housing market has continued to grow over the long term.

SK: I’d say wait and see. Fundamentally the only reason that we got through the financial crisis with almost no pain compared with the rest of the world was courtesy of the first home vendor’s boost. And we’re the only country to restart the housing bubble with something like the first home vendor’s boost.

Now, when the first home buyer's… vendor’s boost began to slow down with its impact on the economy, then China’s stimulus hit on the other side. It was the biggest stimulus on the planet, with Korea then Australia next in terms of the size of the fiscal response. Of course our exports to China started going through the roof both in terms of volume and the prices we get for our commodities, so that really gave us a huge boost.

Now, we’re seeing China arguably, getting to the stage where its bubbles are bursting and we’re therefore seeing that particular wind coming out of the Australian economy. But that wind up has balanced the wind down coming out of the decline in credit growth because what we did through the first home vendor’s boost was reboost borrowing, so debt… private debt began to rise compared with income rather than fall which is totally different from the experience in America. Now, that that’s worked out of the system, we’re now seeing it starting to fall. The two-speed economy we’re seeing is… the negative side of that is coming out of the reduction in credit growth which we can’t stop. You know, you simply can’t hold it at those levels, so that is now dragging the economy down and China is pushing us up.

Overall, we’ve seen it being on a knife-edge where unemployment has actually risen of course in the most recent months and that was unexpected by the RBA and Treasury and co were expecting a continuing boom. I don’t regard that most recent data as anything other than a blip. When the last set of figures came through, there was a 0.1 per cent fall in the unemployment rate, but there was also a 0.5 per cent fall in hours worked. So, there’s something. You know, it’s murky data, but the trend appears to be for rising unemployment now and of course the falling house prices at the same time. So I think the ‘everything is wonderful here’ argument partially is based on the important role of China, but it’s also based on the same delusion that made Iceland think it was hot shit before it fell apart.

AP: How specific a forecast for house prices are you willing to give for the next year?

SK: Despite the property lobby’s best attempt to tar me with saying, you know, a 40 per cent fall over the next few years – which is a shitty little quote from The Daily Telegraph that Chris Joye touts all over the place – I’ve always been strong in saying that will be over 10 to 15 years.

But in terms of bringing it to a tighter timeframe, I think you could tie me down to saying I’d expect something of the order of a 20 per cent fall from peak to trough, whatever the peak might be, whatever the trough’s going to be. I’d be quite happy now to say the last price peak was the overall peak and so I’d expect something of the order of a 20 per cent fall between now and say the end of 2013.

AP: Steve, thanks for your time.

SK: Thank you.

Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/property-interest-rates-RBA-eurozone-debt-crisis-h-pd20111019-MS7H7
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Steve Keen: My 40% house price fall prediction was a "shitty little quote" (cue 50% cut in his forecast)

Errrr, yeah but mate you were happy to provide it to News Ltd. And you had to walk from Canberra to Mount Kosciuszko because you agreed that you lost your bet with Rory Robertson over this "shitty little" prediction that you rolled out on countless TV stations. So, we have classic complaining from my buddy Steve Keen in this interview with Business Spectator today. Steve is famously loose with his opinions, which I previously benchmarked here. It would seem that the risk of even more public ridicule has compelled him to cut his earlier forecast in half. Rory should challenge him to the same bet again!

"AP: How specific a forecast for house prices are you willing to give for the next year?

SK: Despite the property lobby’s best attempt to tar me with saying, you know, a 40 per cent fall over the next few years – which is a shitty little quote from The Daily Telegraph that Chris Joye touts all over the place – I’ve always been strong in saying that will be over 10 to 15 years.

But in terms of bringing it to a tighter timeframe, I think you could tie me down to saying I’d expect something of the order of a 20 per cent fall from peak to trough, whatever the peak might be, whatever the trough’s going to be. I’d be quite happy now to say the last price peak was the overall peak and so I’d expect something of the order of a 20 per cent fall between now and say the end of 2013."
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Catweasel
Member Avatar


Catweasel laugh. The Nutty professor at it again. Talk about about throw a cat among a pigeons mouzealots. Experts and media going to be have a field-day. Catweasel think it a time a Nutty Professor find a tenure in the foreign country before some the nutbar attack with a crowbar (some the mentally disturbed white shoe or possible the Strindbag).
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Alex Barton
20 Oct 2011, 01:13 PM
http://christopherjoye.blogspot.com/2011/10/steve-keen-my-40-house-price-fall.html

Steve Keen: My 40% house price fall prediction was a "shitty little quote" (cue 50% cut in his forecast)

As pointed out in the other thread, this revision from 40% to 20% is much more than a 50% cut, because prices have risen substantially since Keen first said they would fall by 40%. This new prediction would only take prices down to about 8% below 2008 levels. His expected 'crash' is now about one fifth of the size it was previously going to be.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Catweasel
Member Avatar


Shadow
20 Oct 2011, 01:35 PM
Alex Barton
20 Oct 2011, 01:13 PM
http://christopherjoye.blogspot.com/2011/10/steve-keen-my-40-house-price-fall.html

Steve Keen: My 40% house price fall prediction was a "shitty little quote" (cue 50% cut in his forecast)

As pointed out in the other thread, this revision from 40% to 20% is much more than a 50% cut, because prices have risen substantially since Keen first said they would fall by 40%. This new prediction would only take prices down to about 8% below 2008 levels. His expected 'crash' is now about one fifth of the size it was previously going to be.
Catwease say the good point. Maybe a time to throw Nutty Professor to the lions. It a false prophet, just like in the biblical time.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Strindberg
Member Avatar


Shadow
20 Oct 2011, 01:35 PM
As pointed out in the other thread, this revision from 40% to 20% is much more than a 50% cut, because prices have risen substantially since Keen first said they would fall by 40%. This new prediction would only take prices down to about 8% below 2008 levels. His expected 'crash' is now about one fifth of the size it was previously going to be.
Yes, the effect of Keen latest prediction is to change his 40% crash claim to a predicted fall of 8.5% - both from the March 2008 peak.

Working:
40% prediction was from the March 2008 peak - ABS index of 131.0.
Latest 20% prediction is from the June 2010 peak - ABS index 149.8.
A 20% fall from that requires the index to be 119.8 ie a fall of 8.5% from the earlier March 2008 figure.
Housing costs to Income broadly unchanged since 1994 - re-ratified here
The People of Australia have the highest median wealth in the World
2002-2012 10 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1952-1962
"There are two kinds of people in this world: ones that fiddle around wondering whether a thing's right or wrong and guys like us." (Hugo to Gagin in Ride the Pink Horse)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Thatguy
Member Avatar


Chris Joye is doing himself few favours harping on about this. We all know what happened and Steve shouldn't have pinned himself into the bet, but at least he went through with the walk when he was proved wrong. I do agree with Steve that the real issue he was trying to discuss was house price falls over a longer period (up to 2020 or so), we've yet to see if he's wrong on that one too. If he is proved right then the house price bump in 2008 will be entirely irrelevant (and there is good reason for it that Steve couldn't account for at the time of the bet).

I'm not saying Steve will be right, but his initial discussion was never really talking about a short term prediction - and he shouldn't have done it again here. Obviously he didn't learn !

Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Thatguy
Member Avatar


Strindberg
20 Oct 2011, 01:44 PM
Yes, the effect of Keen latest prediction is to change his 40% crash claim to a predicted fall of 8.5% - both from the March 2008 peak.

Working:
40% prediction was from the March 2008 peak - ABS index of 131.0.
Latest 20% prediction is from the June 2010 peak - ABS index 149.8.
A 20% fall from that requires the index to be 119.8 ie a fall of 8.5% from the earlier March 2008 figure.
Is the ABS data adjusted for inflation ? and is Steve talking talking 40% real terms or 40% absolute?

I always assume all things are talked about in real terms (deduct baseline inflation).

There is NO WAY there will be a 20% absolute price reduction - surely he can't be saying that.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Olmule
Default APF Avatar


Thatguy
20 Oct 2011, 01:49 PM
Chris Joye is doing himself few favours harping on about this. We all know what happened and Steve shouldn't have pinned himself into the bet, but at least he went through with the walk when he was proved wrong. I do agree with Steve that the real issue he was trying to discuss was house price falls over a longer period (up to 2020 or so), we've yet to see if he's wrong on that one too. If he is proved right then the house price bump in 2008 will be entirely irrelevant (and there is good reason for it that Steve couldn't account for at the time of the bet).

I'm not saying Steve will be right, but his initial discussion was never really talking about a short term prediction - and he shouldn't have done it again here. Obviously he didn't learn !

Fortunately for himself and his health CJ will never, ever admit to being wrong.

It would be a huge risk to his health for him to attempt something like the walk up Mt Kosciuszko:

Posted Image
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Strindberg
Member Avatar


Thatguy
20 Oct 2011, 02:00 PM
Is the ABS data adjusted for inflation ? and is Steve talking talking 40% real terms or 40% absolute?

I always assume all things are talked about in real terms (deduct baseline inflation).

There is NO WAY there will be a 20% absolute price reduction - surely he can't be saying that.
Neither the ABS nor Steve Keen deduct baseline inflation. Steve Keen decries the practice of ignoring "absolute" prices and only looking at "relative" prices in the "About" page of his website.

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/about/
Quote:
 

The argument that persuades them goes something like this: ”what would happen if you simultaneously doubled all prices and all incomes? Nothing!” In other words, if consumers are rational (now there’s a much abused word, but I digress), they shouldn’t care about the absolute prices of goods, just their relative prices. So doubling all prices and doubling a consumer’s income shouldn’t cause her to do anything different (but of course, changing relative prices would alter behaviour).

Bollocks. Double all prices and my income, and I’d be much better off because my mortgage payments would take less of my income (even if interest rates were also doubled). That’s because I’m in debt–I have a mortgage. And you can’t simply double interest rates to reach the same outcome as doubling prices, because debt repayment dynamics make the whole thing “nonlinear”: include debt seriously in your analysis of consumption, and the “veil over barter” vision of money collapses. But this “inconvenient truth” is omitted from economics–not because economists are deliberately hiding it, but because they have deluded themselves about the nature of money.

I take it into account, and as a result I get a very different picture of how the economy operates than do conventional (“neoclassical”) economists.
Housing costs to Income broadly unchanged since 1994 - re-ratified here
The People of Australia have the highest median wealth in the World
2002-2012 10 year house price growth the SLOWEST since 1952-1962
"There are two kinds of people in this world: ones that fiddle around wondering whether a thing's right or wrong and guys like us." (Hugo to Gagin in Ride the Pink Horse)
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 13



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy