We only have a brief Money Morning for you today as we’re rushing to get the Australian Wealth Gameplan weekly update out to members by this afternoon.
But there is something I wanted to mention today…
It’s been a while since we caught up with any of our old broker pals – probably because we’re a bit of a pariah these days.
But when we do meet up over the $13 all-you-can-eat buffet at the RACV Club in the next couple of weeks we’ll try and eke out of them what kind of message is going around Australia’s broking rooms.
Our guess – and it’s only a guess – is that it will be similar to the message written by Michael Pascoe in The Age yesterday. It was under the headline, “Why a China slowdown will be good news.”
The whole article has a similar ring to the “house prices will plateeeeeeaaaaauuuuu” argument.
You’ve got to give it to the mainstream, apparently nothing ever goes down. Except when it’s already gone down of course. But don’t mention that because everything’s going back up again.
But a pretty good sign of the market getting near the top is when brokers and commentators start cheering 5% and 10% falls in the stockmarket, or when growth in the economy slows, “Oh, it’s OK, the market needed to take a break, it’s a good buying opportunity.”
Or, the economy “needs to pause, it should plateeeeeeeaaaaauuuu from here for a few quarters…”
Sometimes that’s true, but when the mainstream is singing it in unison, it’s time to be on guard.
But all that aside, there’s more to worry about that just whether Pascoe thinks a slowing China will be good news.
It’s the whole attitude towards China that’s even more worrying. The general idea that the Chinese are privy to a miracle formula that enables them to conduct not only the Chinese economy but the global economy in the same way that Andre Previn conducts an orchestra.
Take this quote from Pascoe:
“China knows the switch must be thrown to greater domestic consumption and less reliance on export growth. The comrades are taking steps in that direction. It would be nice if they took more of them and did so faster, but they are wary of rocking their bus – there are an awful lot of people jammed into it.”
Again, the assumption is that China can throw a “switch” and miraculously everyone in China will perform exactly as directed. That everyone will buy and sell in exactly the correct quantity and at exactly the right time.
Not only that but they’ll also pay exactly the pre-set price when they buy something and receive precisely the right pre-set money when they sell something. And when they’ve got that money they’ll hold it for just the right time before spending it on something else as directed by central planners.
Make no mistake, that’s what central planning requires. Heaven forbid if someone should buy two pairs of shoes rather than one pair, or a jar of jam rather than marmalade. Doing so would send the whole plan out of kilter.
And even worse, should a black market develop where goods and services are provided at a different price or quantity than the central planners decree, then there’s another spanner thrown in the works.
Not that the mainstream commentators consider any of that. According to them, central planners such as the Chinese or the Reserve Bank of Australia can just throw a switch and individuals and businesses just eagerly follow the determined path like brainless automatons.
To be honest, we’re not sure why the Chinese government have been placed on this pedestal. We can only think that the mainstream believes because China operates a fully coercive economy, that it can order people about at its whim and therefore economic success is assured.
The reality is far from that.
No economy can be centrally planned continuously without it leading to an eventual total collapse. That the Chinese economy has managed to go on for so long is what’s really amazing.
But get something straight. I’m sure you’ve seen the impressive photos of the Shanghai skyline and the vibrant and bustling downtown areas. But just because yuppies in Shanghai are buying Rolex’s and Louis Vuitton bags doesn’t signify wealth any more than Australians buying a 150 inch plasma television or a seven-bedroom house signifies wealth.
Wealth and spending aren’t the same thing. You can have wealth without spending, spending without wealth and spending with wealth. Oh, and no wealth and no spending of course.
But to simply come to the conclusion that because some Chinese are spending on fancy watches and fancy cars that those individuals or the whole economy is wealthy is misleading to say the least.
The important thing to remember is that the Chinese economy has taken off, largely thanks to being able to provide western businesses with cheap labour and cheap production. But it has done so coercively.
For every fancy watch buying person in Shanghai, there’s thousands of others who haven’t curried favour with the government and are therefore left to suffer the consequences of a repressive society. A government created oppressive society.
And like any other coercive and violent government it has rewarded those it favours and hurt or destroyed those it dislikes.
But that doesn’t mean Western governments are no less discriminatory, just because Western governments have adopted minimum wage legislation. All that’s done is to push employment offshore into the lap of coercive governments. Where they own the means of production and force individuals to accept labour terms or… well, you get the picture.
Those left in the West unable to find work because they’ve been priced out of the market may not be forced to work in oppressive conditions, instead they become part of a permanent underclass relying on favours from their own coercive government.
A government that can turn the welfare tap on and off as it sees fit.
Without minimum wage legislation in Western economies, there would be less demand for cheaper overseas labour and less ability for socialist governments to control those individuals.
Besides, Western governments are no less guilty of giving favours to certain people and industries while simultaneously penalising those it considers to be less desirable.
So while Pascoe and the other mainstream cronies talk about the heroic Chinese government and its ability to flick a switch to point the economy in the right direction, they should remember that the switch flicking is not the result of free markets and free will.
It’s the result of coercion and violence.
I’ll make the point again, there’s much, much more to fear from putting more power into the hands of governments than there is from putting power into the hands of individuals. Yet people in the West have somehow become dependent and reliant and over-trusting of government authority.
The result is less freedom – as Shae will explain in Money Weekend tomorrow.
But to sum up, the idea that Australia can ride on the coattails of a booming Chinese economy forever is mistaken. Sure, take advantage of it while you can from an investment perspective – as we have in Australian Small-Cap Investigator and Alex has in Diggers & Drillers – but if you think it will last forever as the mainstream commentators seem to believe then I’m afraid you’re going to be sorely disappointed.
Cheers,
Kris.

{ 96 comments }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
PuntPal, you said:
“And when rates were lowered people didn’t deleverage!!! You keep avoiding this point – that is why rates are increasing now, because you give a drug addict a little taste and they want more and more. This nation is addicted to debt and the only way to get them off it is to raise rates.”
That’s not true. What I said was that rates should be cut, and people forced to put their savings against the debt, so that we can start paying it down. I also suggested that banks be directed by regulators to stop increasing their offshore borrowings, and start paying them down at a certain percentage year by year. You are ignoring more than half of the alternatives I have suggested, or must have missed them. Do you actually read what I say, or can only see red a couple of lines into them?
PuntPal, you also said:
“And when rates were lowered people didn’t deleverage!!! You keep avoiding this point – that is why rates are increasing now, because you give a drug addict a little taste and they want more and more. This nation is addicted to debt and the only way to get them off it is to raise rates.”
Again, that is not true. I am not avoiding the point, but suggested a solution to them, which is different to yours. Yours, and Keen’s, of raising rates until people start eschewing debt, is akin, to use your own analogy, to making drugs more and more expensive to addicts until they can no longer afford it. Do you really think that will work? Where have you been?
PutPal, you also said:
“You and PF also make this ridiculous assertion that this bubble can be safely popped with stagnant prices….who is going to achieve this??? The same idiots that allowed the bubble to build??
And what lesson will people learn – will they be scared of taking on too much debt in 10 years time????”
As I explained before, the fundamental problem is that people are being forced to protect themselves against the excess money printing that rages on at some 15%+ per annum. This is the root cause of the problem, which causes savers to hold their savings at higher risk than most would care to take. This is the bottom line and you need to grasp this and hold it firmly in mind if you want to understand where I am coming from, not to mention being fair in your responses.
Unfortunately, the very same rotten conditions also give an opportunity for rampant speculation, as in the investment property market, where some people end up with a whole collection of properties, and and who keep pushing house prices higher. But even so, the question is still whether higher and higher rates are the best answer.
To me, clearly not, because higher and higher reates will keep hitting all segments of a shaky economy, and will keep making us less and less competitive for earning that export dollar. This is madness, and it is a miracle that we have been able to keep doing this while everybody else is trying their best to make their exports more competitive by keeping their rates low.
If the speculators should be pissed off from the residential market, then they can easily be targeted in the ways I have suggested. I don’t understand why anybody with no vested interest in volatility and instability would want to push for them, as that is precisely the consequence. There are clearly far better alternatives, and blind freddy should see them.
PuntPal – how can I possibly stop a boom, or a bust for that matter. It is completely out of our hands. You don’t seriously think that you and I influence the market.
PuntPal – No it is not a crock. You seem to assume that I am trying to defend higher house prices, whereas I have indicated quite clearly that I am not in the least concerned about house prices. I see genuine dangers in a crushed and devastated economy. There are cures for housing prices that would not endanger the wider economy and make us less and less competitive like higher and higher rates are going to do. It is clear, however, that unless we are hit with double digit unemployment and failed households and businesses, the horrors of an economic depresssion will not be grasped by many. But by that time it will be too late, and what will be, will be.
Did you guys see? Something is up with silver:
http://www.perthmint.com.au/metalPrices.aspx
cb – we have more common ground than I thought, but I dont agree that raising rates is similar to increasing the cost of drugs for drug addicts. I think we have to consider how this will play our.
At the moment, we have rate increases spooking the property market. Forget what you hear about auction clearances and sale prices, thats all rubbery stuff reported by RE agents etc…
The truth is lending is dropping away and we will see some price declines. This will stop the mania that exists now (apparently they are getting record turn outs).
The people to worry about are the last bunch of buyers who bought in at the top of the market and have little equity to lose. There will be pain – nothing we can do to prevent that now. But the RBA should not be blamed for busting this bubble but they should lose their jobs for allowing to build
watch gold over the next couple of days.
PuntPal – your idol is on the money with these observations in today’s MMA:
“The thing that gets us is, how is this any different to the actions of central bankers? OK, you may think we’re drawing a long bow here, but in our opinion the comparison is valid.
In the case of Paulson and Goldman it was selling to investors assets that would lose value – knowingly if we go by what we’ve seen so far.
It seems to us that this is exactly the same charge that could be levelled against the central bank and retail banks. It issues money which it knows will lose value. Not that it openly tells you that.
The bankers talk up the strong economy and increasing asset values and how Australians’ wealth has improved. Yet all the while the banks reside over an ever devalued currency. A currency which has lost around 90% of its value in the last forty years.
Isn’t that fraud? Telling you one thing while the opposite is actually the case. Sounds like fraud to me.”
I am talking about the same fraud, and it is part of that fraud that once bubbles are blown, they then pop them to create extreme volatility, which then is being front run and exploited through trading, using dirt cheap money created from sweet nothing. That is why a prespcription of taking a more targeted approach will not be followed. These bastards need the volatility to continue making obscene amounts of money while everybody else is demolished and impoverished. By arguing for higher and higher rates, you are unwittingly talking their book. It suits them just fine.
see my response cb in the other thread, I think Goldman Sachs saga is more like the conduct of Westpac, CBA and all their affiliated brokering, real estate, housing, media businesses t hat have suckered the Australian population into believing house prices are sustainable.
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
Comments on this entry are closed.