“THE TWO GREAT VESTED INTERESTS”

“BANKERS AND COMMUNISTS”,  a thoughtful article by Alan Kohler in today’s Business Spectator.

On which I commented as follows:

Bryan Kavanagh,

Great article, Alan! I’ve just come from a conference/workshop in Chengdu last week, organised by academics from Trier University in Germany and Sichuan University concerning China’s land policy. The Chinese are increasingly aware that the multitude of farmers on whom the nation relies, as here in Australia, are not getting anything like a fair price for their products, and are beginning to espy the mechanism which delivers wealth to the wealthy and poverty to the producers.

Things in China are in much sharper relief than here in the West, and land policy has quickly become the focus. China is beginning to learn that unlike productive wealth, land rent needs to be shared equally between all citizens, so the poor receive their share of the surplus. Failing this, urban billionaire developers are being created on the back of the land rent deprivations of the poor.

China is considering two options, selling off land in a “one-off’ to create a fund to address some of her inequalities, or capturing her land rents (to which barely subsisting farmers would have to contribute nothing).

I argued the case for the latter, and was happy to see a number of China’s academics also understand that a secure revenue flow is preferable to selling off the silverware.

The argument is far from won, however. As in Australia, Chinese billionaires find it difficult to accept the principle of any significant land-based revenue stream.


Check Google Page Rank

Lessons for China from Canberra

GET IT RIGHT FIRST UP. LAY DOWN THE POLICY WELL IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.  (A RIVER IS ALWAYS PUREST AT ITS SOURCE.)

Here’s my presentation to the China land policy workshop in Chengdu yesterday. Bryan-Chengdu-final-中文

It doesn’t mention that the ACT still captures a little of the rent for local government, and that it is replacing stamp duty from extending land value capture, but that came out in later discussion.

There’s no doubt some of the Chinese academics at the workshop have “seen the cat”, and let’s hope China will adopt a system of land value capture, rather than selling off her land for a “once-only” gain.

A lovely dinner last night with all the speakers, after the two-day workshop.

I thank the organisers of the conference, The College of Architecture and Environment, Sichuan University, and Professor Dirk Loehr, Environmental Campus Birkenfeld, University of Applied Sciences Trier, Germany for my invitation to speak.

It was heartening to learn we have equally committed brothers and sisters operating out of Germany and China – and I can recommend a visit to Dr Dirk Loehr’s blogsite: “Rent Grabbing”.

Check Google Page Rank

Chengdu

ChengduWow!  I’ve found a new definition of suicide: a pedestrian trying to cross a street in Chengdu! And that Chengdu ‘Hot Pot’ is another pretty good way to do yourself in.

A great land use policy workshop, though. I’m speaking about “Lessons from Canberra” tomorrow.

And the poet Du Fu’s cottage is much more than a cottage; it’s a vast area of quiet landscaped contemplation in an incredibly active city.

Uninhibited line-dancing, music and singing in the People’s Park and great restaurants, tea rooms and “The Alley” shops. Nice people!


Check Google Page Rank

Stutchbury stuffs it

StutchburyMichaelMichael Stutchbury, editor-in-chief of the Australian Financial Review distinguished himself on the ABC’s “Insiders” this morning.  Unlike Barrie Cassidy’s other two guests, Kerry Anne Walsh and Mike Seccombe, who could apparently see a difference between other taxes and the mining ‘tax’ (resource rent), Stutchbury was quite sure he should lump the mining tax together with all the other taxes Australia needs to reduce.

That’s one more trained economist who never learned the difference between a tax and a natural resource rent. You also somehow skipped your Economics 101, Michael?

Wonder whether he’ll insist staff at the AFR see no difference either?

Alan Mitchell at the AFR knew better.

Check Google Page Rank

HIGH-PRICED CORN, PIGS AND LAND

The price of pig,
Is something big;
Because its corn, you’ll understand,
Is high-priced too;
Because it grew
Upon the high-priced farming land.

If you’d know why
That land is high,
Consider this; its price is big
Because it pays
Thereon to raise
The costly corn, the high-priced pig.

– H.J. Davenport

[And we know how to get land prices down, don’t we?]


Check Google Page Rank

BLOGOSPHERE IS ON FIRE TODAY

blogosphere

Robert Carlin of CIS is out in the Australian Financial Review today on Stamp Duty:

http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/stamp_duty_needs_reform_y8icDtPp9yLluOeNL4VVNN

MacroBusiness has it picked up:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/11/stamp-duty-has-to-go/

Also on MacroBusiness, Catherine Cashmore calls for LVT:

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/11/talk-is-cheap-its-time-for-action-on-housing/

Which has thrown up this very interesting speech on the realities of tax reform by Federal Court Judge Nye Perram:

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/publications/judges-speeches/justice-perram/perram-j-20130829


Check Google Page Rank

DAVID COLLYER COMMENTS ON IMPORTANT AHURI PAPER

“On the edge of realty” (sic) …

 

Go to the AHURI site.

Check Google Page Rank

So, Australian Bank CEOs still say we have no bubble?

Toy house balancing on tower of wooden bricks, mans hand removing one blockIn 2005 Dean Baker and David Rosnick forecast the collapse of the US residential market.  They have every right to hold their heads high, unlike most financial analysts who still can’t get it right. They show the following factors were elementary in their identifying the US real estate bubble:-

1) a sharp divergence between house sale prices and rents – yields became incredibly low (as in Australia at the moment – under 2% in many cases!)

2) an extraordinary rate of housing construction (so where exactly was the purported “shortage”?)

3) a sharp decline in the rate of savings (If you’re paying off incredibly high mortgages, you’re unlikely to have much, if anything, left to save.)

These mainstream and banking explanations for high land prices were found to be well short of the mark:-

1) a shortage of land (The poor old neo-classical economist always says: “Prices must be high because of a shortage of supply”, but not so. Land prices are high because the government isn’t capturing enough of the annual rent of land, therefore more and more land rent is available to be privately capitalised into high prices! Basic stuff!)

2) environmental restrictions on buildings  (C’mon!)

3) growing incomes  (Not borne out by the facts – see Point 3 above. Maybe for the 0.1%?)

4) a growing population  (Then why does my chart which puts Australia’s total land price over GDP–which thereby accounts for the growing population–still show an incredibly rapid escalation in land prices?)

There are facts explaining our high “housing” (rarely land) prices, and then there is the nonsense put forward by banking apologists.

Check Google Page Rank