GI Joe and the Market for Lemons

GI Joe is possibly the worst movie ever (see the number of goofs and plot holes here). But I still spent 2 hours watching it, even though there were plenty of better things to do with my time. Am I simply a fool?

The answer is, well, maybe. The reason I sat all the way through is that I thought the movie might redeem itself by having a nice twist at the end, or even a few cheesy lines that I could laugh at. But no.

Considering the number of terrible films made this type of situation is relatively rare. It is easy to get a number of honest reviews to narrow down the quality before watching a film.

In any case, it got me thinking that movie markets are similar to lemon markets because the quality of the good cannot be known in advance. In a true lemon market the quality cannot generally even be known after the good is consumed.

Economics of work and leisure

Recently, I cut back work to 4 days a week with a surprising result. Rather than feeling like I am enduring marginally less of a bad thing, I am actually finding work more challenging and interesting – even though I am surrounded by the same public sector circus.

I feel like a 20% cut in work has resulted in an 80% improvement in my work satisfaction, rather than merely a 20% boost.

As an economist I really shouldn’t be surprised. Economic theory suggests an optimal work time – there are decreasing marginal benefits to work (in terms of pay), and increasing marginal costs (in terms of time, level of stress, level of frustration etc).

But this experience (and the popularity of this television show) has got me thinking about how the wellbeing of society at large can be improved by working less.

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.

The Christmas gift arms race

I do like Christmas. Maybe it’s the memories of childhood where a simple water pistol was enough to keep the anticipation high for weeks, and then become an object of desire (and destruction) for months.

But these days I feel like Christmas has become more of a burden then a blessing. My experience suggests that the last decade has seen the demise of delayed gratification. Maybe it’s just because as a child you are subject to parental decisions, and so you learn about delayed gratification. Then in adulthood, you realise there is little need for that anymore and are happy to splurge whenever it suits you. But maybe it is a more widespread cultural phenomenon.

The cause of this burden I feel is what I call the Christmas arms race.

Summer Reading

The past few weeks I’ve somehow found time to read.  Here are a few interesting titles that I would recommend.

Tony Abbott...

…believes that a high price of oil will encourage new discoveries, such that the concept of peak oil is not valid.  This is a classic example of what could be called ‘Price religion’.

Could I suggest that Tony Abbott (and I guess many ideological economic zealots) try and apply their logic elsewhere.

For example, if the price of fish goes up, does that mean that we will discover more fish on the Great Barrier Reef?

If the price of land goes up, will we discover more land?

Of course Tony Abbott and other followers of the Price religion don’t believe we will find more fish on the reef if the price goes up. But somehow, they will leave their logic at the door when it comes to oil or other fossil and mineral resources.

Then again, he could just be reiterating his party line – it is probably not a good time to let the media catch a glimpse of anything other than unity in the Liberal party these days.

Best of luck with that Tony.

*Note: I have grown to dislike all the current political parties, although I used to give support to the Greens. Maybe there is an opportunity for a fresh young political party in Australia these days?

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.

A graph I promised to make

There is a lot of talk about population and number of new dwellings in the housing market debate.  What is generally overlooked is that at any point in time everybody is living somewhere.  Occupancy rate is fluid, prices change, and in the long term, population growth in an area can't happen without prior construction of housing. 

The graph shows the new dwellings constructed per new person (per person of population growth).  We do notice a recent decline in the number of dwellings being constructed nationwide compared to the population growth, which is reflected in the later graph showing increased occupancy rates.  The direction of causation amongst these variables remains unclear, and in all likelihood, they are interdependent.

Regression with net new dwellings per person of population growth as an explanatory variable for change in the capital city price index gives a negative coefficient (-0.011) but really, has no explanatory power (r2 of 0.006).

That means that analysis of population growth and dwelling construction figures has no power in explaining housing price changes.

Australia's most expensive house

The previous record for Australia's most expensive single dwelling (don't think it falls into the house category, nor even the mansion category) was a measly $45million.  Just this week that record has been smashed by a respectable figure of $57.5million for a Perth waterfront mega/super/ulltra-mansion.


(What was he askin'? $70million - tell him he's dreaming!)


It shouldn't be a surprise that the sale was from one mining baron to another.  In Brisbane mining companies have a reputation for sending lots of cash in a hurry.


What shocked me was the claim from the real estate agent the he had sold Australia's most expensive house back in 1980 - for just $2,150,000.


Times have indeed changed.

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.

Tax me, please

People hate taxes. But they are necessary, and some are better than others.

Henry George’s arguments in his 1879 book Progress and Poverty are that all benefits from progress accumulate to land owners. He proposed a single tax on land because the value of the unimproved land is unearned, neither the land’s value nor a tax on the land’s value can affect productive behavior. If land were taxed more heavily, the quantity available would not decline, as with other goods; nor would demand decline because of land’s productive uses.

I agree. A land tax is by far the least bad tax. Milton Friedman even agreed – “In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.”

There are many reasons to prefer land taxes.

Fuel efficiency insights

I watched a Top Gear episode where Jeremy Clarkson raced a Toyota Prius and a BMW M3 around their test track for 10 laps. It wasn’t a race really. The BMW only had to follow the Prius as it drove the tack as fast as possible.

And what happened? The Prius, with its 1.3L engine used more fuel than the M3 with its 4L V8!

To make matters worse for the pro-hybrid lobby, Clarkson also drove a 1.7 tonne V8 Jaguar XJ6 from Basel in Switzerland to Blackpool in the UK on one tank of fuel – a similar result to the little VW Polo.

So what is going on here with fuel efficiency?

Australia, meet Dubai

The property market is Dubai is crashing and burning as we speak.  It was inevitable of course, but never underestimate the perseverance of a property boom.

On that note I want to talk about the future here in Australia.  In 2010 and beyond I foresee the following sequence of events.

1. Rate hikes of another 0.5%
2. Property prices will flatten and fall in some areas
3. The government will run out of ways to keep housing demand propped up – we had more cash injections and foreign buyers (although as yet I can’t imagine what else may be dreamt up).
4.  Inflation will be a major concern again – the USD will recover and the fuel price here will head up.
5.  September 2010 will lead to another correction on the share market, taking the ASX200 down below 4000 again.
6.  But then a strong rebound in November up to 4400
7.  House price will stabilise at 10% below their peak (in nominal terms) but real growth in house prices will not occur until 2015.
8.  A Current Affair and Today Tonight will has specials about house prices crashing in certain areas and people being forced out of their homes by mortgagees.
9.  Even while this is happening, people will continue to shout and scream about a housing shortage and argue for reduced taxes on developers (even though we have the world's biggest houses)
10.  The 2011 census data will show that demolition rates were less than expected and that the total number of dwellings in Australia is higher than expected (the remarks by the RBA’s Ric Battellino seemed a bit pushy on the supply constraint issue).

It’s not a catastrophic forecast, but it seems reasonable to me. Anything I've missed?

Why all this property market discussion from an ‘environmentalist’?

I have been thinking of changing the title of this blog—mostly because the term environmentalist is associated with fairly extreme views on the protection of ‘natural’ environments and other species, and partly because I also have a keen interest in the property market.

But in my mind, understanding property is the key to a reasoned approach to preserving our quality of life by preserving environmental amenity. Maybe I am more of a ‘quality of life’ economist who believes there are many non-market goods, including the quality of, and accessibility of, natural environments, and that these are major contributors to our well-being.

However the increasing fanaticism I have observed in some areas of the climate change movement, the lack of ability for some environmentalists to see the forest for the trees (pun intended) has led me to distance myself from some of the core environmentalist views.

Take the topic of the moment, climate change. Why don’t we hear about\

• Any potential benefits of climate change (crop yields, new land use opportunities, etc)
• The statistical reality behind some of the conclusions (high uncertainties)
• Other important environmental issues that are cheap to address and provide immediate direct benefits

I feel like climate change is crowding out other local environmental concerns that will immediately contribute to quality of life of Australians.

In my mind, a quality combination of land use and environmental controls in our cities and towns can contribute far more to the well-being of society than other popular environmental issues.

So what then of the blog title? Any ideas? Or does the economist part imply a rational approach?

Is road congestion the best allocation mechanism?

Congestion is a darling topic of politics and the media, and a topic of many conversations around the barbeque. But what is it? Is it a bad thing? Do we want more of it or less of it?

I define congestion as a condition of a network (of roads or other conduits) whereby the existence of extra users slows the rate of progress of all other vehicles. Given this definition, there can be a little congestion, where progress of road users is slowed a little, or plenty of congestion, where progress is greatly slowed.

Real Estate Review

My colleague is looking for a real estate agent to manage her house after downsizing to an apartment, choosing to keep the house as an investment.

She is facing a conundrum I have faced before. How does one go about comparing the performance of property managers before committing to a management contract?

Can the market for property management services be competitive without reasonable access to information?

Are Chinese buyers affecting house prices?

Respected economist Alan Wood notes here why he believes small increases in foreign investment in the Australian real estate market will not have a tangible impact on home prices.

While it is nice to have a little calm to a situation that is sure to encourage exaggerated media spin, I’m not sure whether Wood’s claim holds - that because Chinese investors are a small percentage of buyers there will be little to no impact on prices. If we make one assumption, that Chinese buyers are willing to pay more than local and other foreign buyers, then his claim completely breaks down.

The following stories might help explain why.

Some empirical support for land economics

There has been a paper recently published by Andrew Leigh, Economics Professor at ANU, which empirically estimates the impact of stamp duties on the housing market. I found out about this paper through Chris Joye’s blog at Business Spectator, although I regularly read the Core Economics blog, where it was also linked with some added thoughts from Andrew. I mention this only because I have now been involved with discussions about the paper at these sites.

I need to quickly summarise Leigh’s findings before moving on to the important theoretical and political implications.

His main finding is that if stamp duties are raised, house prices will fall by more than in the increase in the tax. Did you get that? If you increase stamp duty, the total price of housing (price plus stamp duty) will fall. Sellers suffer, buyers benefit. It’s a classic land tax - there is no deadweight loss, as shown in the figure below.




How can such a thing occur? For any other product, assuming a competitive market, if you add costs to production, prices will have to go up (even if quantity sold goes down), or margins will go down (temporarily at least).

Land, however, has some characteristics that make it quite different from other goods

1. There is a fixed supply (vertical supply curve), and
2. It is costless to produce (the producer surplus starts at a price of zero)

Some would argue that land available to be developed is not in fixed supply, and that town planning regulations can change that supply. I agree. But these are regulations, they are not market players, and that does not make the supply of land price elastic (although I would suggest the supply curve for serviced residential lots above the intersection with demand is quite elastic as land parcels are brought to market). I think both sides would agree that from a theoretical standpoint, the supply curve is vertical below the intersection with the demand curve.

It is the second point that is far more important to understanding the land market. Land itself is costless to produce. That means that the level of demand determines the price of land at any point in time. Not supply, demand. So when you increase a tax on land the total land and tax price stays constant, but the underlying value of the land declines (as shown by the reduced producer surplus in the figure above).

I have been quite baffled by the success of Christopher Joye’s argument that the supply of housing is a major factor in determining prices. He maintains two contradictory positions. The first is that we have a land price boom, not a house price boom. The second is that we should elastify the supply of housing to avoid further unnecessary price increases. Hang on chap. We don’t have a problem supplying housing. Our problem is that we all decided to pay ridiculously high prices for land.

There are two more characteristics to the land market that make analysis difficult. There is competitive behaviour in the market for buying land, both development sites and serviced land parcels, but not a competitive market for the sale of land.

Once a serviced land parcel is developed, there is no price competitiveness exhibited when selling to the final consumer market. The problem with land is that if prices fall, they can gather momentum as people sell to avoid further falls. Also, if developers seek to undercut the market price, it reduces the value of all their other land holdings. There is no incentive to release below market prices.

I also believe Leigh’s findings shed some light on my argument that changes to town planning rules, including increases in height limits and allowable building area, does nothing to affect home prices. Any site with increased development potential will fetch a higher price, and the resulting dwellings will be released at the market price.

While Leigh’s paper is just one simple analysis of stamp duty rates and house prices, the theoretically sound finding should put to rest some of the illogical arguments of the supply side warriors, and the property development lobby in general.

In Japan you can glimpse the future

When I first visited Japan in 2004 I saw the future - trains, gadgets, vending machines - but most importantly, I saw some amazing toilets. Even now, when I have a conversation with people returning from Japan they always comment about toilets. If you’ve visited Japan you would know why – they range from traditional squatters, to high tech digital robots. The most best of them all will greet you, automatically lift the lid, warm your seat, wash and dry your backside, play your favourite music, and flush automatically.

Back in 2004 I saw one particular style that was simple and profoundly efficient, where the cistern was filled via a basin so that you could wash your hands with clean water, and then use that same water to flush the toilet.

At the time I saw a market for such a design in Australia. I visited Japanese kitchen and bathroom stores to see the price range for these types of toilets, and investigated possible shipping costs. Alas, I became distracted and never followed through with this idea.

Now it seems that popular toilet maker Caroma is making these very toilets in Australia and the US. Only 25 years after their invention in Japan.

For anyone who likes the idea but is not interested in buying a new toilet, you can get a step by step guide to retrofitting your own throne to have this functionality here.

As an economist I wonder why it took the market so long to adopt this simple innovation in our water starved nation.  Was everyone simply as bad as I am at following through their ideas?  Was there a stigma in Australia about washing your hands with 'toilet water'?  Now that it is available here in Australia, will it even catch on?

Unthinkable

I read a book that opened my mind recently. It is probably not on the best seller lists (is #53,525 rank in Amazon a best seller?). It is called The Unthinkable: Who survives when disaster strikes – and why.

This book examines the human response to fear in crisis situations and is presented in a very easy to read, non-scientific, yet analytical way.

A Redwater diverter for every new home?

Markets and opportunity. Peas and carrots.
Hand in hand go such things, and one would expect that in our new water conscious world, any device that can reduce water use in the home will go hand in hand with the phrase 'in demand'.

Here’s one device that has the benefit of being automatic and energy free.

It diverts the cold water sitting in the pipe between the hot water system and the hot tap to a storage (toilet, rain tank etc), then diverts the water back to the tap as it warms.
For all those whingers who need hot showers in Queensland it is probably a good water saving idea (yes, that's me).

I have, however, seen a nifty alternative. In Budapest I remember staying in an apartment that had a gas water heater bolted to the bathroom wall just one metre from the shower. Not only was the water in the pipe already warm from being inside, but there was hardly any water in the one metre of pipe anyway.

I’m not sure you can actually put gas water heaters indoors in Queensland, but one similar solution would be to have your water heater outside the shower wall.

Of course, if all that is a bit much and you still want to save water, you can just buy a diverter valve.

Psychologists at the RBA?

People have instinctual short sightedness. It is a primal trait. Each passing day adds risks to the realisation of future events. Our probability of dying increases, and the waiting time captures multiple risks of the event not occurring at all. In economese, that’s why we discount the future.

However, it is not all that simple. Behavioural economists have shown that people don’t discount in the expected rational way. Instead of treating each year into the future as capturing the same risk, each consecutive year is treated as less risky than the previous year – a concept known as hyperbolic discounting.

For instance, when offered the choice between $50 now and $100 a year from now, many people will choose the immediate $50. However, given the choice between $50 in five years or $100 in six years almost everyone will choose $100 in six years, even though that is the same choice seen at five years' greater distance

Why does the RBA need to know this?

The strategy of a gradual withdrawal of monetary stimulus by incrementally raising interest rates is meant to allow people time to adjust to higher interest rate levels. However, if people discount the likelihood and impact of each further interest rate rise, they will not adjust until it is too late anyway. The instinct of the masses will be to all but ignore the highly probably increases in interest rates in the near future.

This may be one reason for the long lags between execution and outcome in monetary policy.

A quarter of a percent increase in rates every month (1% over four months) is going to hardly register in our animal minds – each change is too marginal, and probability and impact of each future change is heavily discounted. A 1% immediate increase followed by no change for 4 months would actually change behaviour in the way the incremental approach is intended.

Have you heard people who have just bought a new house talk about the inevitable interest rate hikes – “We’ll deal with that when the time comes”. They are simply acting on instinct.

Fractal Finance

Ever heard of the Elliot Wave Theory? Maybe you have, but I hadn't until last week. Put simply, this theory suggests that markets behave is a predictable way which is not driven by fundamentals (actual production of goods, actual jobs, etc) but simply by human behaviour in the marketplace – the collective investor psychology.

The image below show the fundamental Elliot wave – 3 peaks (1, 3, 5) and two troughs (2, 4) on the way up, and two troughs (A, C) and one peak (B) on the way down.

While quirky (as an economist I like to think in terms of the fundamental patterns of production) this theory has a lot going for it.

Business stripped bare

This book is Richard Branson’s latest eye opener into the world of Virgin. The one man publicity machine takes the reader on a tour of his business philosophy and how the philosophy actually works in the realms of the Virgin empire.

I am a fan of Branson and the Virgin empire, for the most part because the company seems to bring competition to formerly uncompetitive markets. Virgin Blue is a classic case study – it revolutionised air travel in Australia. The budget carriers in Europe had already been vigorously competing for some years, and it was only a matter of time before the same thing happened down under. But without Virgin, would we have waited another 5-10 years for air travel competition?

Population caps: Social catastrophe or sound planning?

My favourite lobby group, the Property Council of Australia (PCA), have attacked South East Queensland Mayors for starting debate about limiting population growth in the region through town planning restrictions.  The PCA's argument is that restricting development in a region has disastrous social and economic impacts. They wield the crossed supply and demand swords to argue that house prices will sky-rocket in areas with restrictive planning regimes.

Not surprisingly, their arguments are flawed.  Here's why:

Don't let bridge designers near our buses!

It has come to my attention that buses in Brisbane are, by international standards, slow.  There’s really no other way to put it.  And I think I have found a way to improve the speed of bus services at the smallest of costs.

Remove bus stops.

My economic philosophy of town planning

At the most broad level, the rationale for regulating land use is to minimise negative externalities to neighbouring owners of immobile property assets. This is why even ancient civilisations had strict rules attached to land.

Modern planning continues this tradition. There are few, if any, countries in the world that fail to regulate land uses (maybe the Vatican?) due to town planning’s success in addressing this fundamental externality problem. By regulating land use you can exclude development that will produce impacts such as noise, pollution, traffic, over-shadowing, and other externalities on other land owners. Protecting land rights, and subsequently land values, is essential to a functioning market economy.

This most basic principle is probably forgotten by many 21st century planners. It is one of my reasons for objecting to the proposed South Brisbane / West End plan. Allowing 30 storey developments creates severe externalities in terms of traffic, overshadowing, and use of public space such as parks. Another reason is based on the following second principle.

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.

Town planning and organic growth – can we reconcile the two?

After a rather challenging discussion with a close friend last week about the necessity of town planning and the degree to which planning constraints impact property markets, I have decided to embark on what might become a detailed rant on the matter. This may the first of many posts on the topic.

The trigger for this planning discussion was a conversation about the proposed increase in height restrictions on former industrial land in the South Brisbane / West End area of Brisbane (see map below). Currently this area is a mix of light and heavy industrial uses, office and warehouse space, and new apartment developments. The area is earmarked as a new growth precinct, in the same vein as Newstead's transition from industrial to a mix of medium density urban uses.

The reason for the ensuing debate is that I oppose the 30 storey height restrictions being proposed in the neighbourhood plan, even though I support densification as a planning strategy. Instead, what I propose is a plan to allow for flexible organic growth.

Lobbyists: If they are always wrong, why are they so influential?

The Property Council of Australia (PCA) is one of those lobby groups with a blatant disregard of the facts and a history of political influence – the kind we love to hate.

Just yesterday the PCA made a submission to the Queensland government outlining how planning laws that promote densification are likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to planning for more urban sprawl. This is not a joke.

They cite a 2007 Australian Conservation Foundation study to give their position merit, but what the study actually says is that environmental benefits from increased density are wiped away by the wealth and consumption effect. Essentially, the data shows living in smaller dwellings closer to conveniences reduces households’ greenhouse gas emissions, but generally, these households are wealthier, and thus have higher greenhouse gas emissions overall. No surprises really.

Unbelievable

Only this week I wrote about cyclist resentment in Australia, with a detailed look into the arguments of the emotional cyclist v motorist debate that happens down under (but not in continental Europe I might add).

In today's local rag there is a snippet of news in the business section that epitomises the anti-cycling attitude of the typical Australian. For the life of me I can't find it online, so I will reproduce it here verbatim. 

You have to imagine this accompanied by a cartoon of a smiling Neil Summerson running over a cyclist, with bike parts, helmet and limbs flying out from under a precious collectable antique Mercedes.  It's true I swear - look on p40 of The Curious Snail. 

In the fast lane
Bank of Queensland chairman Neil Summerosn had a traumatic encounter of the cycling variety prior to fronting the media and analysts at the bank's record results presentation yesterday morning.
Summerson, a keen car buff with several automobiles in his garage, suffered the indignity of having a cyclist pass his car as he headed into the city for the press conference, estimating the speed of the cyclist at well over 40km/h.
The BoQ chairman pulled up at a stop sign only to see the cyclist whiz through the sign, prompting Summerson to call out, "Don't you obey road rules?" The two-finger salute followed and Summerson then pulled up alongside the bike rider, smiled, and put his foot full down on the accelerator of his Mercedes E500 V8, leaving our rider behind in a cloud of dust. Sticking to the speed limit of course.

My questions:
1. Why is having a cyclist pass you a 'traumatic event'?
2. Why is Summerson's hooning behaviour promoted as an acceptable response for motorists unhappy with other road users?
3. Is this how Summerson behaves every time he witnesses a road rule being breached?

Honestly, I couldn't believe what I was reading.

Coming up next - medicated air!

I couldn't think of a snappier title, but I wonder when we, as a society, decided that everything needs medicating.

Last year I wrote about Queensland's move to fluoridate the water supply, and how there are probably better drugs to put in water that fluoride.

It appears this is just the beginning.  It is now mandatory to add folic acid to bread flour in Australia.  You probably haven't even heard of this before.  Niether had I until I read this article, which argues why this heavy handed regulation is stepping way over the mark. 

100th post: Bicycle registration?

I wanted to write a beautiful piece reflecting on two years of blogging for this event – my 100th blog post. But instead, I’ll get down to some nitty gritty analysis of contemporary issues with an economic and environmental twist.

Today’s topic is cycling.

After a charity ride from Brisbane to the Gold Coast last weekend, the local rag has ignited the dry tinder of cyclist resentment present in the Australian motoring psyche (remember the Rex Hunt incident?). I want to deconstruct the emotional Cyclist V Motorist debate to see which positions hold merit, and what type of government intervention could provide benefits for all involved.

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“.

The Value Problem

Economists believe they have solved the old Water-Diamond Paradox by showing how prices are determined at the margins. But how then do we value a large stock of resources when we only know the value of a marginal unit?

Consider this problem. A river catchment has 1,200 megalitres of tradeable water rights. The last trade occurred at a price of $2,000/megalitre. Essentially this means that the last megalitre (the marginal unit), out of the 1,200 megalitre stock of water in the catchment, is worth about $2,000. But are all the other 1,199 megalitres therefore worth $2,000 a pop? Quite simply no. If the government compulsorily acquired half of the water in the catchment, the 600th megalitre would be worth more than the 1200th megalitre – an example of declining marginal value.

Whether the weather increases volatility of markets

I recently read, and thoroughly enjoyed, the book Rigged. In one scene a young trader is asked what factor contributes most to changes in the price of oil - to which he responds, the weather. For example, a cold winter in North America or Europe signals an increased demand for oil and sends the price up. 

So my question is this. Given how weather dependent our agricultural industry, our energy industry, and other essential primaries industries can be, how much less volatile would financial markets be if we had predictable or constant weather?