"Australian Exceptionalism": best performing and fairest developed nation
blogs.crikey.com.au
blogs.crikey.com.au
Australian retail, especially e-commerce, is completely uncompetitive compared to the U.S. Try picking a product at random from www.toysrus.com.au and compare the price on Amazon and even after international shipping it will almost always be much cheaper to just buy from Amazon.
E.g., Megatron Transformers toy: $70 in Australia (http://www.toysrus.com.au/popular-boys-toys/kre-o-transforme...) vs. $25 at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/KRE-O-30688-Transformers-MEGATRON-SET/...). It's almost as if Australian e-commerce sites depend on their customers not having heard of the internet...
That's exactly what it is. They pretend they don't exist, or that somehow what you get is inferior.
Historically, it's because the Australian dollar was weaker (after the last minerals boom bust) and therefore imported goods were more expensive. The retailers built their business models on higher margins, and now are struggling to compete with the disruptive influence of international e-commerce.
I'm not expert on retail but I suspect the problem is with too many middlemen - importers, wholesalers, and the like. But instead of trying to work out why/how to compete, they are starting to run to the government looking for intervention.
One of the few retail chains doing well is Supercheap, which has BCF and Goldcross bicycles (and probably some others). They seem to be able to be cost-competitive with international prices on many things and are still profitable.
To me, there is no reason why an Australian e-commerce site couldn't be more successful. ebay is wildly successful in Australia, so it's not like people are averse to purchasing online. It's more to do with woeful range and prices.
If Amazon ever decides to open up an Australian subsidiary with warehouses located in Australia they will wipe out entire retail chains. As it is, they're already knocking them about badly even with inflated international shipping and long lead times.
Amazon, IIRC, refuse to do so because of the ban on parallel importation of books.
The same thing happened with music - there was a push to stop parallel import of CDs which cost about $25 for an album. But iTunes rendered that argument completely meaningless anyway.
I have one local bookstore left in my area but it appears to be existing on lots of big tables full of discounted merchandise sitting outside. The range is woeful and the prices are criminal. I doubt they'll be there in another 12 months.
E-books obviously make import regulations of books irrelevant so I don't think Amazon would bother setting up a retail operation in Australia.
But if Amazon Web Services set up shop down under, well now, that would be quite disruptive!
I have a Kindle for this exact reason.
> But if Amazon Web Services set up shop down under, well now, that would be quite disruptive!
I don't see why they would. In terms of global traffic, Australia is a minnow. But in terms of cost-per-bit, we're one of the most expensive locations in the world.
It makes more sense for Amazon to sit offshore and send bits in, where they'll be paid for by the end user with an ISP account.
About as close as you'll get is Singapore, I think.
Bandwidth to the US is cheaper, and some ISP (TGP cough) route based on price rather than latency.
I'd dig up the link from the Amazon forums, but I've got a feeling we've had this discussion on here before?
So the answer is: 1) set up US proxy so you appear as US browser (ie openproxy or similar) 2) open up US-sepcific account using US address (any will do, you're not getting anything shipped, I used a postal service). 3) purchase gift voucher for amount covering the books you wish to purchase with 'regular' amazon account 4) use US account via proxy to make purchase, and use gift voucher to pay for them. 5) use Kindle cloud reader to download purchased ebooks to your local machine (you have no Kindle registered to this account, so you can't download to your kindle). 6) install calibre open source e-book management (this is a good tool for managing your ebook collection anyway) 7) google for amazon DRM book plug in for calibre 8) load purchased ebooks up, run drm cracking plugin 9) connect kindle and upload cracked books 10) open beer and laugh openly at futile attempts to use DRM to control industry
It sounds complicated but it's not really that hard. Amazing how you have to act like a criminal to do something that would seem logical to everyone but a publishing lawyer.
You can also use this tool to share ebooks between kindles, ie, yours and your partner - as you would with a book purchased from a store.
Now they check the address on your credit card, and check you are coming from a US IP address. I've heard you can work around this using pre-paid credit cards (and possibly gift cards) and a US based proxy.
Aust. retail rents are (among?) the highest in the world, higher than London and New York. This is mainly due to poor short-sighted planning authorities in local councils which over-manage commercial planning. The result is that, except perhaps Melbourne, all large retail is in malls instead of spread among the suburbs. Almost all the malls are owned by one or two parties, Westfield being the major. As monopoly owner, they have squeezed retail rents for decades.
See: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=aud+to+usd
Re: the property bubble. House prices in Australia are high compared to historical levels. However, as this article from Crikey describes, Australian wages have risen too. While median house prices are still at a higher level compared to median wages (see: http://economics.hia.com.au/media/House%20price%20to%20incom...), they have been soft and in some cases reducing this year. They haven't 'burst' in the way the US housing bubble did.
The differences between Australia and the US where you had a massive house bubble are numerous.
* Australian banks are more heavily regulated and haven't lent 'sub-prime' mortgages.
* Australian housing market has good fundamentals - our population growth has been quite high (due to overseas migration, like yourself!), and in most areas there is an undersupply of housing (with exceptions like the gold coast).
I think you are overplaying the negatives in Australia, in general everything is working quite well as this convincing piece from Crikey shows.
This is completely untrue. The extent of sub-prime mortgages isn't the same, but it exists nonetheless. As does the existence of RBMS, which the government continues to purchase from the banks.
All of that looks over the fact that the big 4 banks in Australia are massively overexposed to residential mortgages and small business loans underpinned by residential property. In some ways it's worse than the USA because the mortgages are still on the books rather than being sold off into the secondary market.
The differences between the Irish housing bubble and the Australian housing bubble are actually much less. So you're right to say that there the parallells between the USA and Australia are less, but the parallells between Ireland and Australia are few. Ireland has full-recourse mortgages like Australia. Ireland had a massive overinvestment in property, like Australia. Ireland had high immigration, like Australia.
As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I don't think there is ever a time when you take your eyes off the negative.
Ireland and Australias' levels of net migration aren't comparable either. See:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ireland+net+migration%2...
As opposed to what, though? Historically housing and small business loans were the raison d'etre for being a bank. It is only the last few decades where they have been allowed to invest in other areas.
I think you are overplaying the exposure to housing. Our tier capital requirements were and are much more onerous than in the U.S. We (our central bank and treasury) have been telling the U.S. for two decades that their banking system was broken, and we were proven right. You can't compare a U.S. bank to an Australian one, they are very different beasts.
The high cost of property runs the risk of slowly strangling the middle class. Not a good idea.
Stamp duty is the most regressive, unfair tax around.
Paying $15,000 or more in tax to move houses? Madness. How on earth is that considered fair, or a good thing for economic development? Particularly when the states agreed to drop stamp duty in return for the GST incomes.
If you take it that demand for housing is pretty much unlimited (everyone wants their own dwelling, and everyone wants as much space as possible) then you must look at supply.
Sure, cities like Sydney are geographically constrained, but this doesn't explain the high cost of housing places where there are no geographic constraints, only planning constraints.
Historically, in Australia, the cost of the land was well below the cost of building a house on it. Now it easily exceeds 50% of the cost in some cases.
The block of dirt under my feet cost 1500 pounds in the mid 1960's. Converted to a modern value, that is about $30,000. That value is out by a factor of probably 15-20 times. Which means, in rough terms, the land is 20 times more valuable now than it was back then. While some of this is attributable to improvement in services, population increase, etc etc, there isn't anywhere where you can buy a house block for $30,000 which is the inflation-adjusted price of the land as it was originally when the subdivision was opened.
The high value of land can only have one factor - restriction in supply. Restriction of supply is caused by a combination of large land-holders drip-feeding blocks on to the market and in collusion with the state government putting major restrictions on the ability to release land for sale.
I think everyone agrees with that. Getting it fixed is hard though.
When comparing income by country, you need to take into account cost of living, yes. This index I've linked does that; Australia is at parity with the richer countries in Europe, but behind the US, Switzerland and Norway.
Which is why Oz online (overseas) shopping has exploded over the past two years. I sincerely hope it forces the local market to become competitive.
In the US, minimum waqe is about US$7.50. In Australia, it's about US$15. Your McValue meal is $1-2 cheaper in the US, but the minimum/low wage worker (the bulk of the workforce) has to work for less time to get that meal in Aus.
Until the e-commerce boom of the last 5-10 years, this disparity wasn't much of a problem, as economies were much more localised.
I'm not saying it's the complete answer (thankfully, I'm not an economist), but it's one of the most overlooked factors in all these analyses: the buying power of the poor.
US Dept of Labour says federal min wage is $7.25: http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/minimumwage.htm
This is what holds back Australians from not ordering more online, especially at Amazon...
Shipping is often cheaper from outside of Australia than it is within Australia (http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/blogs/malcolms-blog/barrie...) which creates more of an incentive to shop internationally.
Where goods are purely digital (e.g., Amazon Kindle or O'Reilly e-books) the whole discussion around shipping costs is obviously moot.
Shipping costs may have been reduced too, but Im sure they are still much greater than other countries...
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/
Free (and pretty fast) shipping to Australia, better prices than Amazon, and a good catalogue (No association other than a happy customer).
Not many people know this, but Australia is basically the Saudi Arabia of high-grade coal and high grade Iron Ore.
They also omitted the fact that personal debt - ie debt owed by people rather than the government is also one of the highest in the world.
Australian also homes usually take out the top spots in the 'most unaffordable' list.
They also omitted the fact that the workforce has gone from being one of the most free back to a much higher regulated workforce, and as a result productivity has dropped precariously and strike action has exploded.
There is no mention in the article of what is termed 'the two speed economy' where manufacturing firms are struggling and retail businesses are closing their doors, mostly because of the high debt load servicing the unaffordable property market and because of diffculty competing against international imports (ie Amazon et al) caused by a strong currency and a very regulated labor market which drives up the cost of keeping stores open.
Yes, the economy has been strong as a result of being underpinned by selling resources to fast-growing nations like China and India.
So I agree with the central thesis that there is much to be proud of, but this type of preening article is a warning that people might start to get complacent and over-prescribe success to perfect management rather than being at the right point in the cyclical trend. The truth is the country is starting to behave like a 3rd generation family who inherets the hard work of the 1st and 2nd generation but isn't prepared to make the sacrifices that made it so.
Crikey is a partisan website - not sure of the US equivalent but it's pretty hard left. It's where you go to confirm your beliefs rather than to get a balanced view.
They also don't mention we (I'm Australian) lost the Ashes. That's not the point - they are saying we talk about the bad things all the time, and fail to take a step back and look at how good we have it.
To address your points:
they try and play down the government debt because it's low, but omitted the fact that 4 years ago it used to be zero and now is growing faster than Ireland did before it went bust.
Well, no.. they specifically talk about government debt. They point out it is lower than almost any other developed country. I don't understand your point about "it growing faster than Ireland" - yes, there is currently a deficit budget (which means borrowing is occurring). I've never heard "it is growing faster than Ireland did when it went bust" argument before, but it doesn't make much sense to me. The Australian economy is much, much bigger than the Irish economy, and the Irish debt crisis was caused when the Irish government suddenly took over billions in private banks debt, not by government borrowing.
They also omitted the fact that personal debt - ie debt owed by people rather than the government is also one of the highest in the world.
This is true, but is misses the point that Australian savings are also at record levels [1]. People are choosing to keep debt while saving money.
Australian also homes usually take out the top spots in the 'most unaffordable' list.
This is true, but at the same time is one of the things that has driven household assets to the highest in the world. [2][3]
They also omitted the fact that the workforce has gone from being one of the most free back to a much higher regulated workforce, and as a result productivity has dropped precariously and strike action has exploded.
That's a very political statement that I disagree with, but I don't think the argument would be useful here.
There is no mention in the article of what is termed 'the two speed economy' where manufacturing firms are struggling and retail businesses are closing their doors
The "two-speed economy" and Dutch Disease is the biggest challenge facing the Australian economy over the next few years. But that wasn't the point of this article.
[1] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/household-t...
[2] http://www.smartcompany.com.au/wealth/20100429-average-wealt...
[3] http://www.beesnees.com.au/thebuzz/2011/11/landlords-in-a-gr...
However, to clarify the point : the government debt is low by world standards, but growing fast, and that is while the economy is at a cyclical high. What I am trying to say here is that : current government debt spending is unsustainable and unwise. The comparison with Ireland is to show this : there is never a good time to start growing your government debt, particularly when your economy is being underpinned by excessively high property prices and diversion of resources into the property industry. What, precisely, would the Australian government do if the banks were all caught short because they are overexposed to the overleveraged and overvalued property market? Why, of course they would be considered 'too big to fail' and public funds would be used to bail them out. And Australians would suffer from the same transfer of private debt to public sector debt to shore up the balance sheets of the big four banks who have massive holdings of residential mortgages. If anyone thinks it can't happen here, I'd be very interested in why not.
My overall thesis is that, yes, Australia is doing well, but that is precisely the time to tighten up and do better, rather than give a collective pat on the back and say, 'well the hard work has been done, let's all borrow a heap of money and give ourselves a reward'.
In other words, yes, on a Friday afternoon, crack a coldie and enjoy a quick survey of things. Back on Monday morning continue the hard work of difficult economic reforms and tightening the fiscal belt and getting productivity higher. Those difficult economic reforms are more deregulation of the labor market, removal of red tape surrounding industry, find out how more international investment can be attracted. Work out how productivity and foreign investment can be increased. The hard work never stops and it's never time to get complacent.
Oh, right. I think that's where we mostly disagree.
I think current government spending is what is propping-up the "slow" part of the two-speed economy. The government needs to find ways to support the bad parts of the economy while stopping the high-growth areas (ie, mining) from becoming "too hot".
If anyone thinks it can't happen here, I'd be very interested in why not.
I'm not saying "it can't happen here", but it is much less likely than it was in other markets. See http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/A-capital... for why.
There are plenty of problems in Australia, including insane housing prices, negligible government support for the manufacturing industry and comparatively lower research & development spending (I don't have data to prove this, but I think this is obvious in comparison to other countries esp. the US).
BUT, on the other hand, we have what other citizens in other countries lack:
* an excellent superannuation system
* a social security system that provides some real security (centrelink)
* a medicare system that provides for all Australians
* a public university system (although since the Howard govt. universities have suffered)
* an excellent public schooling system
* relatively low gun crime and,
* a tolerant, multicultural workforce.Australia doesn't have to be good at everything.
One easy example is manufacturing management, particularly of electronics. People think it's easy, but it's really quite intricate. I've worked for two manufacturers of electronic goods, and if a production manager leaves, it's very hard to find a replacement that has a clue. And if you're not a company that can afford both the scope and salary to pull talent internationally, it scuppers your ability to make things efficiently. It takes years to train someone up to be an efficient self-directed production manager.
There's also similar things like this in the trades - tradesmen are so heavily paid right now because of exactly this issue, skills forgotten by society. We went through a period where trades were looked down on and the skill pool atrophied. With only so many tradesmen and too much work, it's really expensive to use that skillset.
I'm lost some potential new friends when I've took exception to their usual slogan "Australia has no culture", which either means that we don't have the thousand years of fine art history of Europe or that we don't have a coming-of-age ceremony like some tribe that live in grass huts do.
We waste so much hot air and our media talking about how crap we are and how poorly performing the country is, when we consistently score in the top 5 in any international measure involving quality of life (oh no, so Sweden or Denmark beat us out again... why is that so shameful that we're not always #1 of 200 countries?)
Not to say we don't have some serious problems, but we do tend to look at ourselves in a bubble and compare ourselves against some mythical 'home country', seen through rose-coloured glasses.
As far as shop fronts are concerned; I live in the UK at the moment, the average town centre here has 25% of shop fonts boarded up, in some towns that figure exceeds 55%. In Australia you might get isolated areas where you get lots of boarded up shops due to local economic factors but you don't get a complete country wide phenomenon like the UK.
Property prices in Australia are due to people wanting to live in big properties. Again in some places in Europe I have seen the equivalent of two up two down terrace houses of less than 100m2 in size converted into 4 separate flats.
I think you could easily argue that Australians are spending their wealth on a better lifestyle. A fairly wise decision when you remember that you can't take it with you.
http://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap46e.pdf
From the linked paper: "During the 1980s, the ratio of debt to disposable income for Australian households was fairly stable at around 45% (Graph 1). But since 1990, this ratio has risen rapidly, reaching 157% in December 2007. Housing debt accounts for the bulk of the increase, with the ratio of housing debt to disposable income rising from 31% to 134% over the period. By comparison, the ratio of personal debt to disposable income increased from 13% to 22% over the same period. The ratio of debt to assets has also risen sharply over the past two decades, from 8% in December 1989 to 17% in December 2007. Many advanced economies have witnessed a large rise in household indebtedness over the past two decades. However, the increase in Australia has been particularly pronounced. The ratio of household debt to income in Australia went from being one of the lowest in the advanced economies in the late 1980s to one of the highest in December 2007 (Graph 2). "
It's an older article (frustratingly newer is harder to find) but since 2007 many of the countries in comparison have suffered badly in property value write-downs.
Basically, my point is this : household debt/income ratios are one of the highest in the world. This is mainly because of the most unaffordable property market in the world.
As has been seen in the USA, Spain, Ireland and elsewhere, a breakdown in the property market has very wide implications for the wider economy as much of the current spending has been due to debt spending. As things are the excess income is being channeled towards debt reduction, which in effect is a negative savings rate, which has major implications for things like consumer spending.
Australia cannot remain at the top of the 'most unaffordable housing' and 'highest debt/income' ratios forever. What goes up must come down.
Even a 10-15% drop in housing prices will not only severely undercut consumer and business confidence, it will also undermine the banking sector stability because most of the major banks are heavily weighted towards residential property lending, meaning their capital bases are underpinned by the values of property.
A fall in housing values would wipe out many of the statistics in the parent linked article. Yet people continue to say what happend in Europe and the USA cannot happen in Australia - but I'm yet to hear a convincing economic argument as to why not.
Right now low unemployment and a strong dollar are underpinning teh property market (to some extent) but also so are (quiet) changes to government policy which include allowing banks to package up more residential backed mortgage securities (yes, those very things that brought the USA undone) and sell them to both pension funds and treasury as AAA investments. They have also changed the rules to allow superannuation funds to now borrow and fund purchase of property, something that was strictly prohibited before. Some mortgage brokers have estimated that super-backed borrowing makes up 20% of their business now.
Even a slight fall in house prices and/or income levels will have major ripple effects. Yet this is not being discussed at all, as it is continually hand-waved away with 'oh that's not a problem, this time it is different'.
Is there a reason for this, or it is just a "something bad must happen" feeling? The Swiss have topped the highest debt/income for years, and it hasn't been a problem[1].
Even a slight fall in house prices and/or income levels will have major ripple effects.
Australian house prices have dropped around 4% over the last 12 months, and have been largely static since 2008/9.
Yet this is not being discussed at all, as it is continually hand-waved away with 'oh that's not a problem, this time it is different'.
That's not true. Most commentators forecast little-to-no increase in property prices over the next few years, and there are plenty of people who think the property market will fall.
[1] http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/world-debt... (and switch to the "household" tab)
The economy is fine at the moment, but as soon as China steps back in any real way things are going to get ugly.
I live in a lower middle-class suburb in Melbourne, and a couple of weeks ago a two-bedroom, one-bathroom house up the block sold for $600,000. Keep in mind too that mortgage interest rates in Australia are higher than they are in the U.S. (7% vs. 5%) and they don't have long-term fixed interest mortgages. The amount of debt home buyers are taking on is insane.
Needless to say I'm renting and waiting for the bubble to pop.
The prices are nuts, at least the market has flattened out of late, but with the population growth rates we are seeing around the country the pressure for housing isn't likely to lift any time soon.
Now all my savings still go into the loan (offset account), but they are essentially a deposit for my next property which I will be able to buy around 28-29 (2-3 years).
Not without a Green Card. I'm Canadian, not American, and the constraints that you have to live under on an H-1B visa whilst in the multi-year wait for a GC are IMO intolerable.
I may complain about the high cost of living in Australia compared to the US, but I am thankful for much greater personal freedom I have--although that's mostly thanks to my Aussie wife. :)
Again in some places in Europe I have seen the equivalent
of two up two down terrace houses of less than 100m2 in
size converted into 4 separate flats.
The fact is in the USA most people can claim their mortgage payments interest as a tax deduction - which is more bizarre.
I agree it's a stupid strategy, but it's plain foolish to think that negative underpins property investment. If you removed it, in the short term there would be a dip in property investment, but this would only work towards creating a further supply shortage.
Negative gearing isn't a tax ruling - it's an investment strategy. Businesses use the tax deductibility of interest payments as a legitimate expense, so it's difficult to argue why this should be different for individuals.
The problem with negative gearing in the context of a tax deduction on housing investments is that it encourages speculation by reducing the losses on bad investments. This is why we have such a disconnect between housing prices and rental prices.
The healthcare system also manages to tread a fine line between having a public safety net (ie, everyone gets free treatment) but also encouraging private health insurance and private healthcare for those who can afford it.
There are many sensible insurance regulations around, such as compulsory third-party-personal insurance that comes attached to vehicle registration, so that if you're a licensed driver driving a licensed vehicle, even if you run over 50 pedestrians you're covered for their losses and they are all covered for medical insurance, compensation payouts and rehabilitation.
The dividend tax system is also quite good, in that, if you're an Australian taxpayer, you can claim a tax rebate on the dividends you receive from revenue arising from an Australian company. So an Australian company pays tax on it's earnings, then pays some of those earnings out to taxpayers via dividends. The dividend recipient can then claim what is called a 'franking credit' on that dividend which is offset against their own earnings. It sounds complicated but what it essentially means is that Australian corporate income is only taxed once - you don't get double taxed for paying out dividends. As a result, Australian companies pay healthy dividends, which underpins investment in Australian companies by individuals requiring income from shareholdings.
Of course, there are some dumb policies as well, but in general things work pretty well, and, as the article says, quality of life and income spread at ranked very highly in world terms.
That's the case in Victoria with the TAC, but I'm not sure about the other states.
All Australian states have compulsory third party personal insurance attached to the vehicle registration.
Policy blunders like this are par for the course here though, Normally committed by the right-wing/conservative (as in economically, not religious, we don't really give them much space in our national discourse) National Party.
http://www.ato.gov.au/superfunds/content.aspx?doc=/content/3...
In most salaried positions, they drop the charade of 'employer contributed super' and talk about your 'total package' which includes your super payments.
I'm not arguing against the merits of forced investment, but you shouldn't believe your employer is paying it for you. You are paying it.
It is different to salary, because it is taxed differently, and when the superannuation rate increased (which happens occasionally) you never see a reduction in your take-home pay.
But it does reduce the amount they can afford to give you as your take-home pay.
Actually, the really interesting discussion is about superannuation-as-forced-savings vs a sovereign-wealth-fund. They aren't really equivalent, but they have some similar outcomes (eg a large amount of capital available for investment). I've gone back on forth on if we should have a sovereign wealth fund - there are good arguments both ways.
The Economist did a special report on Australia in May that goes into much more detail: http://www.economist.com/node/18719530?story_id=18719530
I find this a strange comment. I find the Australian electoral system (if thats what you mean by political process) better than most of the other large western countries (USA, UK, etc.). As for the 'competant leaders' part - I'm not sure the leaders have much to do with Australia's success at all. Sure, the politicians do some good things, but also some pretty terrible things, just like most other western countries.... I think the economist article misses the point too of the natural wealth (not just minerals), and perhaps also a quite worldly attitude, being at the centre of Australia's economic success, rather than specific politicians...
Resource exports drive the currency up so much that the rest of the economy suffers. But international comparisons using that exchange rate look pretty good.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/us-australia-china...
"As much as I am wary of discussions of national character, there’s another aspect of cricket that I think relates to Australian character. This is the fretting that comes from unfavourable comparison with the unattainable."
I loved this: Imposter syndrome has a far better payoff than the Dunning Kruger effect.
(Edit: I submitted a link from the comments on that as a post here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3332497)
Following that, the article only presents statistics in the particular way that shows Australia as leading, while leaving the other ways unsaid.
First it talks about GDP growth percentage without adjusting for population growth differences.
Then it compares the average income growth per year while ignoring the hard numbers of both where it started and where it ended, removing the ability to compare income with other nations.
This is followed by more of the same, an odd obsession with comparing the economic growth of Australia's poor to the rest of the world's rich, citing a high minimum wage as if it were an accomplishment instead of a fiat law, a claim that anyone who disagrees is in denial, and topped off with a shot at the American government.
It seems Americans aren't the only ones who enjoy chart-fueled autofellatio.
Of course all this sniping is done behind their back. If Air Force one actually touches down, they line up like preening peacocks at the bottom of the steps.
The article is really about (a) trying to convince people Australia is on the right track politically and (b) trying to say 'hey, we don't have a 99/1 wealth spread like Americans do'.
"Australia is like a library with a dozen or so books I've read, and re-read and read again. In London and Europe, it feels like I'm in a library that I'll never get to the bottom of" Justin Knock
Yes they've got money, but the blandness of life here wears you down.
But dude, you are in PERTH - the most isolated city in the world. Sydney and Melbourne are far less like that, especially now the dollar is high and we are starting to get better cultural acts visiting.
And I think many Australians have seen as much of Europe as most Europeans - if not more.
I hate that when I was in NYC, every night had a band or play or comedian that I wanted to see, but I wonder if Sydney is worse than, say, Buttfuck Iowa.
Perth is the most geographically isolated city in the world.
The flight from Perth to Melbourne is only 3 hours and 30 minutes, less than flying from LA to Chicago.
Hawaii - LA flight times are routinely > 5 1/2 hours
I was wrong.
Even though we are so isolated, we get some of the best house / drum & bass music acts in the world coming here, and combined with the great weather = awesome music festivals.
Additionally, I love the fact that I can drive to work in 10 minutes and the CBD in 15. I've thought of moving elsewhere, but in my opinion Perth (and Australia in general) has excellent quality-of-life.
Being able to make very good money as a developer is just the icing on the cake.
Try moving to Melbourne or Sydney.
Whilst your interests might not be complemented by living in Perth there are many others that would love to take your place. People interested in windsurfing, diving, the beach, and even astronomy (as Perth normally has little cloud) all love the offerings available here.
That said, if you're looking for British TV then Perth isn't the place for you.
Just shoot an email to jobs@89n.com and mention you're from HN!
I'm looking to move from the US to Sydney, but now's not the best time for me to pull the trigger. How frequently would you guess an offer like yours comes around?
caskings@ionetworks.com.au
"Australia is a lucky country, run by second-rate people who share its luck."
Ouch! It's a bit harsh, in that Australia does punch above its weight in some areas (eg. excellent radio astronomy program and some very good medicos). It's spot on for other areas though, such as the majority of business and political leadership. One gets the feeling that the things that succeed in Australia do so in spite of the leadership, not because of it.
The thing I get frustrated about is that people continuously say 'look we're better than Japan or the USA or the UK'. But what I want to say is 'well, why aren't we the richest country on the planet with the highest standard of living for all?'. Comparing yourself to mediocre performance just leads to reversion to the mean because people -as you say - become second rate and share in the luck, convincing themselves it was their wise stewardship that made the luck happen.
It's interesting to note, if you say "The Luck Country" to Aussies under about 25 years old, they have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm sorry, but I just really dont buy this line that somehow Australia has been much better 'managed' than other countries over a long period. I see very little to support this at all other than extremely vague inferences....
It's not about vague inferences, it's about clear policy decisions.
1. We floated our currency before that became the norm.
2. We have an open and totally independent central bank which telegraphs its intentions to avoid mysticism.
3. We have very low or no tariffs on almost all trade, including agriculture.
4. Compulsory superannuation means we will not face a pensions crisis in future, unlike almost every other developed economy.
5. A long series of microeconomic reform and deregulation.
6. Low sovereign debt. It got down to zero for a few years. The electorate has no appetite for debt and out debt levels are rounding errors by international standards.
The argument that it's all down to geography is demonstrably false. 100 years ago Australia had the same relative wealth as Argentina. Similar economic profiles, comparable population and so on. Today our countries are very different.
Policies and institutions matter.
However, we must realise that as Australians we have very little to do with it, its natural resources in general (agriculture, minerals, the ocean, etc. - there's very little that we are missing) and a relatively low population that make us rich.
With wealth comes complacency, bad government, and probably self-righteousness, however on a positive side hopefully it will at least mean the end of the perpetual 'brain drain' of the last 100 years to the UK and other countries.
"How well" and economy is going correlates well to exports.
Agriculture and mining do make up 57% of exports however, thus keeping the trade balance on keel.
Mining makes up 47% of the total - agriculture as a whole is smaller than Gold alone, and roughly the size of our crude petroleum exports (I never realize that!). See http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trade-at-a-glance-...
The Europeans came 220 years ago, took the land off the indigenous people over the following century, then created a centrally-controlled federal border 110 years ago to keep out others. Australia became known as "White Australia". But they couldn't hold back nearby Asia's population for long. 70 years ago, Australia gave up control of their foreign policy and defence to the US to keep out Asia, and has been giving up economic control ever since. Many call Australia "the 52nd state".
In the 1960's the immigration began: first from southern Europe, then from Asia. International students and immigrants lease the apartments and houses, keeping the rent high, eventually buying the houses, keeping the prices high. Like Canada and Northern California, most come from Asia. Australia/NZ and Canada are an economic, political, military, and cultural extension of the western USA, with the same immigration patterns.
Immigration is the price of remaining politically part of the English-speaking empire instead of a Japanese, Chinese, or Indonesian-speaking one.
1) How does the USA have political and economic control of Australia?
2) If Australia had not ceded political and economic control to the USA, what would have happened re: Asia? Are you talking invasion?
3) Why is immigration the price of remaining politically part of the English-speaking empire?
Furthermore:
4) Do you think that immigration is altering the status quo of Australia/NZ/Canada as English-speaking imperial extensions/nations, resulting in new "mongrelised" nations, or is it shifting these countries to become more Asian, or is it tacitly maintaining the status quo?
Income inequity is increasing, but the relative equality of income results from a unionised history (less so now), with the concept of "a fair go for all".
[1] http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp279_e.htm
[2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/push-on-doh...
The growth is absolutely a product of liberalization, accidents of geography and timing have made it so.
Further, the improvements in living standards are directly attributable to lower cost imported goods.
There are still pockets of protectionism around, but in world terms these are quite small. There is nothing like the agricultural protectionism of the US and EU, for example.
I do agree with you that luck has a lot more to do with it than good management.
For example if you are Japan trading access to the car market in Australia for unencumbered steel imports Australia wins, Japan needs a lot more steel for their manufacturing base than Australian consumers will ever need Japanese cars. (Yes, that example is a bit contrived, but I think it demonstrates my point.)
That's just not true, and our high unemployment rates (until recently) show it.
Australia has always been an importer of manufactured goods. Our car industry was supported by old fashioned import tariffs.
Prior to the mineral boom, Australia's wealth came from mostly agricultural exports (eg wheat and wool)
You can look that up here: http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?queryid=251
I would define a high unemployment rate as one higher than a comparable peer nation, so I do not think Australia can be considered to have had high unemployment by that measure.
http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2010,1034.html
We're freer by a point or so over the UK and the US (home of 'free speech'), as rated by Reporters Without Borders. Of Anglo culture nations in particular, NZ is way in the lead, Aus is #2.