Why not a fixed money supply?

I would appreciate thoughts on the matter as this is a bit of early brainstorming on the issue.

I asked this question in a macro-economics class at university once. It seemed simple enough at the time, and seemed to me like a pretty simple and effective way to control a country’s monetary system.

The question was side-stepped quite successfully. So I went to my knowledgeable friend instead.

While there are some interesting conversations happening, I have yet to find a solid overview of the fixed money supply idea and the implications in practice. 

Thinking out loud here, as a general rule technological change and capital investment will enable a given society to produce more goods in future periods. With a fixed money supply, that means that prices will decline over time – deflation.

So the relevant question becomes - how does an economy function with persistent deflation? And my friend has a lot more to say on that. 

Just quietly, imagine you lived in a world with persistent deflation, you would be blogging about a how crazy it would be to propose a world with persistent inflation – how on Earth would it function with the value of money being destroyed each day?

This interesting article outlines a number of tangible problems facing an economy with deflation, including sticky nominal wages and the inability for a central bank to have a negative nominal interest rate. However, past deflationary periods have not curtailed our passage of economic growth, nor do we often read about deflationary periods of prior to the Second World War. The graph below shows the number proportion of inflationary and deflationary years pre and post WW2. The ‘old fashioned’ long-run has almost equal periods of inflation and deflation - a time when money supply was far slower to grow than at present.



One problem is that deflation rarely recovers to mild inflation but springs back to hyperinflation, as suggested here. Because people hoard money during deflation, the government response is typically to increase the money supply, then, when deflation looks under control, these hoarded funds come back into circulation in the real economy leading to rapid inflation. With a fixed money supply, this effect should be dampened.

Maybe then the best thing for governments to do is live with a little deflation, rather than actively responding by increasing the money supply. From the Austrian School we get these insights into the money supply, and why a little inflation might still be a bad thing, and find this conclusion:

... to Mises even a monetary policy that would pursue a pre-determined rate of money supply expansion (as proposed for example by Milton Friedman's k-percent rule) for stabilizing a broadly defined price index would remain a potential source of crisis which, in turn, bears the risk of undermining the value of the currency. This explains why Mises, in an effort to reduce that very risk to the ideal of a free society, argued for stopping the expansion of the money supply, thereby arguing for a concept quite different from today's state-of-the-art monetary policy.

With a fixed quantity of money maybe we could end up with less volatile swings in the value of the currency because behaviour would not be influenced by expectations of monetary policy changes. The expectation of a standing by the fixed money supply would lead less uncertainty, less hoarding, and potentially far more confidence in the currency.

However, we are still left with detailed questions about how debt or could work in this environment, whether people can perceive negative nominal gains as positive real gains (maybe there is a behavioural bias), and whether such a system provides a strong incentive for innovation and capital expansion.

Newsflash: Property Council of Australia makes a reasonable point

The Property Council of Australia is a powerful lobby group known for ignoring truth and reason in its appeals for support from all levels of government.  The PCA’s latest battle surrounds the proposed amendment to the Valuation of Land Act 1944 (the Act), which will clarify a number of definitions for determining the ‘unimproved’ value of commercial buildings – a value upon which land tax liabilities and local government rates are calculated.

(As a strong proponent of land taxes I should be paying particular attention to the necessary practicality of  valuing unimproved land.)

The property lobby sees this Bill as a tax grab due to the likelihood of higher land valuations, and they have mustered plenty of support from other industry associations to stop it getting passed.

What follows is a brief analysis that suggests the Bill is quite unworkable, that the PCA has actually raised real issues with the practicality of the Bill, and also suggests extreme incompetence by the Queensland government.

Proposed changes to Section 3 of the Valuation of Land Act 1944

Words removed are struck through, and inserted words are in red. 

(1) For the purposes of this Act—

unimproved value of land means—

(a) in relation to unimproved land—the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require negotiated as a bona fide sale; and

b) in relation to improved land—the capital sum which the fee simple of the land might be expected to realise if offered for sale on such reasonable terms and conditions as a bona fide seller would require, assuming that, at the time as at which the value is required to be ascertained for the purposes of this Act, the improvements did not exist. negotiated as a bona fide sale, assuming the improvements did not exist.

Firday quick links

No need to correct my spelling.  It's my new revenue generating strategy (thanks Ben). At least it will be if current research on misspelled domain names is anything to go by.
It appears that someone has spent time investigating the potential ad revenue from websites that are misspelled variations of popular websites. Surprisingly, a viable business model is to register misspelled website domains, and simply post ads relevant to the real website (or to the real website), to ultimately generate a decent profit.

But is there anything wrong with that? The authors of the study think so, and they have launched a lawsuit seeking damages from Google for facilitating this practice with their Adsense for Domains tool.

To me, this is a classic example of market fulfilling a niche function. There is nothing stopping businesses buying the domains which are misspellings of their own if they are willing to pay more than the value of revenue generated by advertising to the current domain name owner. Further, I would suggest that typing a web address to navigate to a site is fast becoming obsolete as you can generally navigate to the site with less typing by using a search engine.

In other news, the Brisbane Young Economists Network is hosting an event in Brisbane on the 4th March.  Pecha Kucha presentations will be given by some local economics PhDs, drinks are supplied, and there will be plenty of time for socialising. 

23 things I have discovered about Singapore

A guest post today from my very good friends Yo and Matt who are currently living in Singapore.

Yo's list -

1. People buy whitening products for their skin – it is considered more beautiful – funny that a tan is beautiful in the west! No one sunbakes.

2. The people walk very slowly, they are never in a hurry.

3. No one EVER sticks to the left.

4. People always sit on the aisle seat in the bus so that no one sits next to them

5. “la” is said at the end of most sentences (I still don’t t know why this is)

6. People hold a business card with two hands when passing it to someone whom they have just met.

7. The umbrella is actually useful on a sunny day *shame* and is a must for the handbag

8. Pashmina’s are also a necessary handbag item – the air-conditioning is set to arctic wherever you go.

9. Chewing gum is not illegal

10. You get the cane for any sort of graffiti (10 lashes I believe)

11. Kids don’t play in parks, or generally for that matter...they are very academic from a young age

12. There are alot of really, really expensive cars: Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, Aston Martins...etc etc

13. Public transport is exceptionally cheap to encourage high patronage – it really puts Australia to shame. It is also very efficient (except to Matt’s work of course).

14. Affordable housing is done well, there are very little, if any homeless people.

15. Maids (mostly from the Philippines) invade Orchard road on Sundays – it’s their day off

16. Being Caucasian, and blonde (and female), you get stared at alot...you learn to win stare-offs very well. (Phebs, prepare yourself)

17. You pay for incoming calls on your mobile

18. You don’t see many policemen.

19. Shopping is a sport. More importantly, bargain shopping.

20. It’s all about the food here. Everyone is always asking about your next meal. (Chappo will fit in just fine)

21. Taxi’s are cheap, which is odd considering a Toyota Yaris is about $50k (just imagine what the Ferrari’s cost).

22. Starting Salary for a graduate engineer is about A$20,000.

23. You can have a maid for A$400/month. They will work 6days/week.

To round out Yo’s top 23 things to a top 30, Matt adds-

24: Almost all residents who live in Singapore are not from Singapore. Most are from Malaysia, Indonesia and other surrounding countries.

25: “Can” means yes, as in yes I can do that

26: Cash for payment is received in two hands (similar to Yo’s no. 6)

27: When someone invites you out to Friday afternoon drinks, that means you leave work late, not early

28: You can pay $2 for two coffees. You can also pay $20.

29: In addition to Yo’s no. 20, people never bring lunch with them to work. We don’t even have a microwave in the kitchen. Lunch with Singaporeans is always a sit down hot meal in a restaurant or cafe.

30: A 100m walk to a Singaporean is equivalent to a 1k walk to an Australian. No one walks very far here.

Global Barefoot Marathon

I have never run a marathon.  I never considered myself a runner. But lately I have grown to enjoy the rhythm of running, the pureness, and the simplicity of putting one leg in front of the other.

It is with this in mind that I propose to run my first marathon on the 20^th June 2010.   Want to join me?

Here’s the deal.  I know there are a lot of passionate runners out there all around the world, and I want to share this run with them.  While we cannot share the run with a physical presence, we can share the spirit of the run by all running together – a global marathon, synchronised, with people participating in the experience from around the world.

Randomness and probability: quantify with caution

One of the main lessons (or reminders for those trained in statistics) found in the Drunkards Walk deals with the reliability of data. Mlodino makes the important point that people latch on to numerical values. He uses wine tasting rankings as an example of how the numerical ranking has a huge impact on price, yet under blind tests, the people ranking are next to useless at actually determining which wine they are drinking.

Let’s look at a recent example of people latching on to the quantity without thinking of the error. Lately, ABS data has shown that unemployment has fallen by 0.1% - what is the probability that in reality unemployment has actually risen?

Randomness and probability: can people intuit probability?

One of my concerns with the evidence on the misinterpretation of randomness and probability in The Drunkards Walk arises during the discussion of the first law of probability: The probability that two events will both occur can never be greater than the probability that each will occur individually. While the law makes intuitive sense, the evidence that people fail to apply it to their reasoning is a little flimsy.

Mlodino asks us to consider an experiment from Khaneman, Slovic and Tversky’s famous book on judgement under uncertainty. Given the brief description about the Linda below, eighty eight subject were asked to rank the statements that follow on a scale of 1 to 8 according to their probability, with 1 representing the most probable, and 8 the least. The results are in the order ranked by the participants from most probable to least probable.

See the results under the fold and why their finding, that people have poor intuition of probability, may be incorrect.

Ugly city syndrome

This article suggests that ugly cities are the result of poor political leadership. That seems like a long bow to draw. I believe the cause of ‘ugly city syndrome’ is more subtle, and maybe we just have ourselves to blame. The simple answer might be that in the modern day of cheap international travel we are comparing ourselves to a wider selection of cities.

But where are the incentives to create a beautiful city? 

Investing the easy way

If I combine the ideas of my land tax post, and my post on Tony Abbott, I end up with a generalised principle of scarce resources.  That is, that productivity gains across the economy accumulate as capital value of scarce resources that have few substitutes, with land being the ultimate example of this principle.

As we find dwindling environmental assets such as wild fish stocks, scarce rights to harvest fish begin to accumulate value due to economy wide productivity gains.  Australia is separating land and water rights as part of National Water Reform, and these finite water rights will also exhibit this general principle.

Most interestingly, and permits from the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will have this characteristic.

We will make a transition from a society where wealth accumulates in land, to one where wealth also accumulates in various rights to other finite resources.  I'm not saying this is bad. In fact the creation of finite rights is the best way I can think to place a value on scarce environmental assets.

I guess my point is that investing in these new finite rights to the environment is one way to invest in the protection of the environment.  Simply buying and holding these rights will accumulate wealth in much the same way that land traditionally has.  Of course, buying land and not developing (or even improving the environmental condition of the land) is a fantastic way to invest in the environment.

*Please note this idea is not yet fully developed.  Any ideas/comments are appreciated.

Are the States simply an historical legacy?

Kevin Rudd seems to be taking Federal control wherever he can.  His latest move is take more control over town and regional planning.  (Does that mean more regulation or less?)

But why not scrap the States altogether?  Aren't States just historical happenstance?

It's an old question. As a State employee I have witnessed the inefficiencies of this bureaucracy first hand.  More importantly, I have witnessed the animosity between State and Federal governments where open cooperation should be the order of the day.  The States always complain about the lack of understanding of Federal officers. "They don't understand what it's like in Queensland" - true, they don't understand the getting things down the slowest and most expensive way is the how we do it.

But my questions are, what is holding back Federalism (for want of a better word)?  Is there not enough public frustration with the States, no political will?

If there was the political will, how would one actually start the process of removing State governments?

Maybe in my lifetime I will get a chance to witness these things.

PS.  I'll be in Canberra next week liaising with the Federal government, so the blog may be quite for a while.  Maybe when I'm there I can get some thoughts from Federal government officers on this issue.

The sleepwalking defence

I state in my profile that we need to turn our ideas on their heads to gain understanding.

So what did I make of this report of a man who strangled his wife in her sleep? His charge of murder was dropped, but I would be surprised if he is not now charged with manslaughter.

But behind the headlines there is an interesting tale about responsibility. We humans are extremely susceptible to external influence. Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment showed many years ago how our rational decision making capabilities can be heavily influenced by our interactions with others. We seem to obey authority figures, and we are known to also conform to group behaviours.

Economists generally assume people behave in a perfectly rational way, and that decisions are made independently. Legal practice certainly seems to take decisions as personal and independent. But we only can make these decisions based on our past education and experiences – past external factors.

But just as we still believe that people are responsible for the decisions and behaviour, even though these arise from past external factors, we should believe that a sleepwalker is responsible for their actions.

Thought of the day

I was intrigued by this question:

What are some examples of successful government bureaucracies?

Defining success in order to answer this question is the same problem that ultimately results in serious inefficiencies within government bureaucracies.  Without clear goals, governments end up stirring the pot but never actually cooking the meal.

To make matters worse, even unclear goals change unexpectedly on a political whim.

Imagine Steve Jobs one day promising in the media that Apple is now going to make running shoes and car tyres.  The whole Apple company would have to learn a new business, and the transition would be costly.  Then 3 years later, he is replaced by a newcomer who declares the shoe and tyre business a failure, and decides instead that Apple should run an airline.  Furthermore, the newcomer decides that the success of the new airline enterprise will not be defined by profits, but instead declares that success will be defined in terms of how much the airline is 'giving back to the community'.  It would be a disaster.

But that's the problem you see.  Tasks that have clear long term goals are no longer implemented by government, but by private contractors.  Governments are left with those tasks that are subject to pot stirring and political whim.  Hence, government bureaucracies never seem to get more efficient relative to private enterprise.

Most rewarding careers?

To my loyal readers,

I want to take a break from the usual blog topics and talk about something a little more personal.  For those who don't know, I am an economist working in the public service but find the work most frustrating, intellectually dull, and completely unchallenging.  You may say that this is no surprise, and that I really should have been expecting this situation.  But the pay and conditions are great and these things were very important when I started the job.

I am now contemplating my next career move and am seeking some advice.  My next move should meet the following criteria:
1.  Intellectual challenge
2.  Rewarding - in the way that you feel like you accomplished something at the end of the day
3.  Potentially ourdoors and active

Another idea is to simply sell up the traditional life, buy a sail boat, and take the family around the world - picking up some unskilled work as we go. If not now, when?

I would really appreciate any thoughts and ideas, no matter how 'out there' they are.

Cam

----UPDATE-----
I think the results of this online personality test sum things up, but don't know where that leaves me as far as a rewarding careers goes.

As a Groundbreaking Thinker, you are one of the extroverted personality types. Dealing with others, communication, discussions, and a little action are your life’s blood - and some of your strengths. You are very articulate and love variety personally as well professionally. New tasks, new projects, new people, fascinate you because you are always interested to increase your wealth of experience. Consequently, you have no problem dancing at several weddings; juggling parallel tasks to be accomplished electrifies you, and you are an accomplished improviser.

Your enthusiasm carries others along and enables you to create positive impulses in your team. Mountains of paperwork, endless e-mail correspondences, and solitary work tire you quickly, and bore and frustrate you. The appreciation of your work by others is more important for you than for the introverted Thinker types. You measure your own professional value by the admiring glances of your colleagues and superiors.

The psychologist Keirsey once described the Groundbreaking Thinker as the “soul of the company,” and that can be just as easily applied to an employee position, as to an independent chief of a company. Since risk represents less of a threat than excitement, freelance or self-employment are well suited to you. However, you must take care to have collaborating staff around you, or that you are able to work closely with other teams in order to satisfy your contact and communication needs. You are naturally suited for leadership positions because there you have the ultimate freedom making your decisions and choosing your tasks.

As a superior, you like to let your subordinates operate on a long leash as long as they do a good job, because it is not your thing to exercise power for power’s sake. Additionally, you don’t feel like worrying about the stuff of others. You much prefer that the person concerned disappears after you have handed him his/her task and later shows up with the finished (and naturally excellent) result. Based on your open way to communicate, then you are not parsimonious with praise.

If you are an employee, you should make sure that your company’s hierarchal structures are as level as possible because you have real trouble with authority for authority’s sake. Otherwise, you can handle critique or diverging opinions pretty well because you don’t take them personally, and are prepared to adapt if you can be convinced of the validity of an argument - if in your opinion it is “logical“.

Turning points

I declared in July that the turning point in thinking about climate change has arrived. Now it seems one of the world's most renouned climate modelers is questioning the validity of the climate change hypothesis (here).

You see the thing is, complex systems results in perculiar outcomes, and can violently change without apparent reason. I have written in the past that I think N.N. Taleb covers the topic well when he talks of Black Swans. Extrapolating the past does not predict the future.

Let us look at some relevant examples. Recently, the population growth predictions from the Treasury were revised upward. But I wonder what the logic behind this revision might be. What new information could change significantly a previous prediction of a century of population growth?

My suggestion is that they make the mistake of extrapolating the past to predict the future. Let's imagine we are Treasury in 1988, and that we have just witnesses population growth like in the graph below.

Wouldn't it be obvious that we should be expecting higher growth in the future? Be if you knew the causes of this growth you could predict that the trend would not continue. It would certainly decline again. And it did.

So I imagine that the current boom in population is the result of two main factors - increased skilled migration, and the baby bonus. The increase in skilled migration could decline drastically at any moment upon political will. Of course, if the douple-dip downturn eventuates, this is more than likely to occur.

Additionally, the increase in natural growth due to increasing births in recent year - the baby bonus children - are likely to be the result of couples bringing forward their decision to have a family. Thus, this little boom is likely to fade quickly as all the number of remaining fertile young couples who desire children drastically reduces. I would hope these underlying points did not escape the Treasury.

Put simply, in complex systems, the longer period of time we consider, the more likley we are to gain insights into the behaviour of the system.  My bet is that the rate of population growth will fall significantly from this peak over the next few years. 

What's with the news?

I thought some of you might be interested in the content you can find through the Courier Mail website’s front page:
• Sexy designs on Columbian catwalk – photo special
• Beauty and the beast – how Miss Universe narrowly escaped a captive crocodile
• The flying car is here!
• Get naked – best nude events, beaches and resorts
• Miranda Kerr caught topless again – photos inside
• Amazing animal escapes
• Beauty and the beast – picture special (bikini clad models holding exotic pets)
I just want to remind you that they also claim a readership of 620,000 each weekday. An economist will ask, is this degradation of news demand driven, or supply driven? Considering the vast flesh content of the internet, maybe it is demand driven. Anyway, I think I have now confirmed where not to go for news.

Aussie husbands fair – not world’s worst

Many things piss me off. One of them is when the media misinterprets technical material, be it scientific, legal, economic or anything else they can find that appears to have a populist twist.

I recommend for those who hate scientific research being totally abused by the media to pay attention to Ben Goldacre’s blog here.

For those who hate it when the media tells of a British economist who finds that Aussie blokes are the worst husbands, please read on.

Within a day of what I suspect was an innocent media release, I could google aussie bloke worst husband and get 107,000 hits. Most news sites, including all the major Aussie TV networks, and print newspaper sites, even local papers, had their articles flashing on their front page, but with 90% of the article text in common.

The same research was also used to claim that Amercians make the best husbands. I am now waiting for a Today Tonight special on the secret lives of Aussie husbands!

I will bet my house on the fact that not a single reporter read the original research paper, and if they did, had no clue what it meant. If you read it, you will see that it is a dense and technical document. That's apparently an excuse not to fact check in news reporting these days. A simple email to any university economics department in the country would have resulted in a good analysis of the findings, and some interesting broader social implications. I know a number of professors who love that kind of thing.

So, what did the now infamous paper actually find? Let me use Sanz’s own words:
Empirical results support the predictions of a house-hold formation model where less egalitarian social norms decrease the supply of men in the household market by increasing a man's cost of providing household labor. Both men and women living in more egalitarian countries have, everything else equal, a higher probability of forming a household. Furthermore, consistent with the theory, individual attitudes run opposite to social norms for the case of women. Whereas ceteris paribus a more egalitarian woman has a lower probability of forming a household, a woman living in a more egalitarian country has, everything else equal, a higher probability of forming a household.

To translate:
1. Societies with a culture of egalitarianism (equality) have higher rates of cohabitation or marriage, than less egalitarian societies.
2. The more egalitarian a women, the lower her chance of finding a mate
3. The more egalitarian a man, the higher his chance of coupling up.

What we don’t know is who is the best or worst husband. There is no difference between married and cohabitating males in the survey data, so that claim of relevance to marriage is bunkum.

But we do finally find details on housework, from a survey conducted in 1994 and 2002. Australian respondents (both men and women) stated that women always or usually do the laundry, cooking and shopping, 74%, 66%, and 60% of the time respectively. That seems reasonable to me for a society wide average, when you consider the average man’s ability to shop or cook! And it’s a lot better than Japan, where women apparently do laundry, cooking and shopping 94%, 94% and 80% of the time!

If we weight these chores equally into a housework index, we find Australia is actually 8th out of the 12 countries in the survey. The European countries only beat us because their men do more shopping! And surprisingly (because it makes at least one media report appear legitimate), US men do the most housework when measured this way!

The main results of the study should not surprise anyone. A man finds a woman more attractive when he believes she will contribute more to the household, while a woman finds a man more attractive when she thinks he will contribute more to the household. But is that news? At least the lucky author now has some attention on their work.

UPDATE
Another 24hours of media circulation brings the Google hits up to 1,310,000 for the phrase aussie husband worst. Still the only website that actually reports what the original research actually reveals is this one.

It was also a topic of discussion in '7pm', the new chat show on channel Ten, last night. Must be a slow news day!

The joys of politics

I recently wrote about the theoretical arguments surrounding fiscal stimulus by governments (here). Anna Bligh in her election campaign promised to 'create' 100,000 jobs in her next term. We know that these actions and promises are all rubbish, so why to we accept it? Why not vote for the guy who is reasonable? Or is it that reasonable people avoid politics and we have to vote for the best of the worst.

I want to bring your attention to comments by economics super-professor Greg Mankiw about the US stimulus bill. Apparently the US government has promised to monitor the effects of the bill and report periodically on the number of jobs created.

It is an absolute mystery as to what these guys will actually do. My cynical side might suggest they will simply pluck numbers from the air. Then possibly vote on what number would by not too high, not too low, but just right, as far as the public perception of their validity goes. They may even dabble in economic tricks.

These are the joys of politics.

Political renovation rescue

Economists are often deluded into believing that their years of diligent research into how government intervention can maximise the wellbeing of the populous may one day result in tangible gains to wellbeing. I must apologise. I am about to shatter the one way mirror currently shielding economists from reality.

A workable economic theory, once in the hands of a politician of any significance, stature, or importance, from local councillors to world leaders, will be utilised as a weapon for vote winning amongst a well studied, segregated and predictable bunch of right-wing, left-wing, religious, environmentalist voters who are easily convinced that ‘full of shit’ equates to knowledgeable and caring.

Let me take a Channel 9 reality TV analogy further than it should ever be taken. Imagine your lovable host Damie Jurie is wearing a toolbelt, complete with hammer and tape measure, talking the talk about fixing trusses to A-frames using through-bolts and nail-plates. The public immediately thinks he actually knows how to use those tools on his belt, and when he does so, we would trust that he does it right.

But if the tool is actually cost-benefit analysis, and the Damie Jurie is actually your favourite rhyming Prime Minister, Treasurer, Mayor, Premier, or any such figure, when they apply the economic tool that they are so fond of, the public has no expertise with which to criticise its application. If we saw Jurie using a hammer to drive in a screw we would be alarmed, question his intelligence as well as his sexuality, and change the channel, if not before we have circulated a series of new Damie Jurie jokes by email. But our politicians can get away with nonsensical applications of technical economic tools because we are ignorant about how they are best used - and they know it.

As a public sector economist I have been shocked at the prominent disinterest in economic models that attempt to capture flow-on effects of policy. Politicians like to know the economic benefits of policies to their target group. But if you live across the road from a working family, especially if they are farmers, and worse if they are a vocal minority group, the cost burden you face will be completely ignored in the ‘cost-benefit’ or impact analysis of their proposed policy.

Imagine my surprise when Federal Government documents explaining how to develop a project plan for a water buyback scheme explicitly state the any flow-on effect should be ignored. It may well have said

‘We need to sell this policy to the ignorant public, please use the most confusing economic terminology to make us look like that ever popular Jurie fellow. Please don’t explain how we’re taxing the general public and putting money directly into the pockets of an arbitrarily selected group of vocal farmers. And while you’re at it, make it look like we care about climate change’

Now, that may be a little cynical. Or maybe it’s extremely cynical. But to intentionally ignore these effects makes the whole thing look like a sales pitch. This time it is to the farming communities in the Murray-darling Basin. Who knows who will get the handouts next time (try working mothers), but gee I wish I was a farmer.

How about an example of the distorted analysis expected in the public sector. A recent ABARE report attempted to quantify the loss from a 10% reduction in water available in the Murray-Darling basin. They used an input-output matrix as one tool (that does not consider flow-on effects to any particular degree). They found about a 6% reduction in total production from the MDB region as a whole. But when using a CGE model (which iterates flow-on effects until a new equilibrium is met) they found that national production decreased a mere 0.04%! Given there are no statistical tests on this outputs of this model one has to wonder whether that is actually distinguishable from zero, or whether it is just a rounding error!

This rant has left me no closer to changing the world for the better. I comfort myself knowing that our political system is the best of the worst. We live in an imperfect world, and this type of vote manipulation, pork barrelling and bribery is a small price to pay for the freedoms we take for granted. I also think about the automatic stabiliser inherent in government, knowing that my salary is an important component of containing the excessive fluctuations of markets, and then give myself a pat on the back for being a great stabiliser!

But at least I feel better for getting it all out of my system. I’m off to buy a farm. Can you help me build a shed Damie?

Tagcrowd - heard of it?

I recently ran across a very interesting website called Tagcrowd. It counts word frequency in text and presents a neat cloud of words that provides a good visual summary. I did it with my whole blog and got the following result. Seems to sum it up nicely.