Well said Pierdsus and Mac. I couldn't agree more and I'm reminded of what Charles Dickens said In David Copperfield.........
"I remember to take the warning by his fate and to observe that if a man had twenty pounds a year for his income and spent nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence, he would be happy, but if he spent twenty pounds and sixpence, he would be miserable"

Have things changed so much ?

Firstly, the Great Depression was in the 1890's when the banks shut their doors and grabbed the holdings of all the small depositers. Some of the bigger depositers were given priviledged considerations allowing them to withdraw their money. When the depression emerged after the 1929 stock market crash this was called again 'The Great Depression.' The factors that caused the crash were never resolved right through the 1930's eventually spiralling downwards into World War2. A war fought out by the great powers over different markets, resources and spheres of influence.
The building and farm equipment manufacturer Caterpillar said recently that the US economy was “near to, or even in, recession.” Another finance guru explained "the financial crisis that erupted in July and August has by no means run its course" “We still do not know precisely how the losses from the US subprime mortgage market will be distributed nor whether credit conditions will tighten further as expectations of losses affect bank behaviour.” There may be a ripple or wave felt widely and diversely through all the other money markets. How does that pan out? No one is sure but there will be casualties.

"Howard has left us with a real time bomb and when it detonates he will probably have retired. The voters will blame the unfortunate government in power at the time,( probably Labor)."
Both Labor and Liberal have been looking after the oil/petrol conglomerates, the financiers and bankers, the tyrants that run the mass media etc., Let us not pretend again these right wing scoundrels have different monetary policies or for that matter planning. These politicians bring on or hasten on an economic collapse. They are very responsible.
Let us not forget either the filthy role the Labor Party played in the Great Depression in the 1890's and in the 1930's dumping the economic crisis on the backs of the workers, as well as, encouraging the banks to grab workers and their families meager savings. They earnt the name 'the great Labor rats' for their despicable treachery.

DonaldS,

I think the "d" word is forbidden because neither side wants to frighten the punters with the truth, who knows which way they might jump.

Snake,johncee,

I agree, we're dealing with a generation that has no experience of a Depression, or has any incentive to save, or reads economic history. Could you imagine earlier Australian governments allowing the population to get so far into debt financing consumption, we're all at the disastrous end of a failed neo- liberal experiment.

Costello is a tricky dicky man without the compassion we need for leadership in Australia. I just can't believe him. I am disappointed in him.

Today we are told by Costello that it is not his job to tell Rudd IF(?) he(Rudd) has a part of the 2013 budget wrong.

Given Costello himself reakons there is a mistake somewhere in his own budget that he found only yesterday, I find that his dialogue on such a serious issue childish.

NEWS FOR YOU MR COSTELLO.

You reduce Australia's economic wellbeing to a two-party domestic spat. Your ego and want for power is obstructing the National cause.

Mr Costello, given you are among the many who are paid $180.000 plus from the TAX_PAYER, you have a "RESPONSIBLITY" to ALL Australians.

Your job is not to carry on as though this is a spar with a fellow opposition. It is to contribute your best in a viable way that gives US the electors the opportunity to see the debate and help the process (where possible) to get a) the government we need and b) the best budget possible given we electors cant have our cake and eat it. Meaning....

.... with so much talent in Australia it is a crying shame that our knowledge base and talent has to be dissected to one or the other rather than the best of both. (It is disgusting!).

Quit the FEAR CAMPAIGN. STICK TO THE ISSUES. ENHANCE OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE ECONOMIC BUDGET AS YOU SEE IT and put Australia's interests First.

This comment ('it's not my job...') reminds me of the Abbort comment on Health a few weeks ago that said he (Abbort) won't do anything about HEALTH for the STATES until AFTER THE ELECTION.

I say get a grip... it is this sort of dialogue that is putting this nation at risk.

http://www.miacat.com
.

The Australian Housing Market - 1996-2003

Prices of houses throughout Australia doubled in the seven years from 1996 to 2003 even though it was a period of low inflation. That is the valuation put on houses in this period went up at compound rate of 10% compared to general inflation of 2 to 3%. This appeared to be caused mainly because lenders wanted to lend people money to purchase houses more than lack of supply. Why did lenders wish to lend money to people to buy houses? One reason was because the money that people lent was not tied to the underlying value of the houses for which the money was lent. That is, the lenders were able to generate loans that were repaid - not with houses but with other assets and most notable future income of borrowers. That is, lenders were able to realise the profits from the unjustified rise in house prices for no risk.

If the above is true then we need a mechanism to attach the money for houses to the house asset class and stop the speculative profits leaving to some other asset class.

One way to do this would be to require that anyone who sold a house to use the money to either build a new house or to buy another house. This would tie all house assets money to the house asset class and would not permit the taking of speculative profits to some other area of the economy. It would stop house speculation in its tracks. It would make no difference to genuine buyers and sellers of houses for accommodation and rent but would stop speculators take their profits out of the housing market and would lead to much new construction. The policy could be reviewed once the bubble had been pricked.

It would be simple to implement and could be trialled on some limited sales (eg houses built on low cost commonwealth land)