Thanks for the links..they show how all over the place Rudd is.

Confused? I am

A couple of points come to mind:

1. If Howard spent more during the boom years this would have pushed inflation higher, there would be no Future Fund and Swan would not have been given a pile of crash to blow on school halls and pink bats.

2. We as a nation cannot be okay unless our trading partners are okay. So I have no idea what was in Rudd’s tea when he was on about Australia would ride out the economic storm okay..the fact is the storm is just hitting us now.

3. If the Government and Treasury reckon Australia will bounce back to growth and all will be okay then why did they blow all our money on wasteful spending measures?!?

I just fail to see much logic in what they are doing.

As for poor old Kev, he went from this on the morning of 10 October 2008 re bank deposit guarantees:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/10/2387244.htm

to this on 12 October 2008:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/12/2388681.htm

About as clueless as a bloke could be I’d say. Mr Bush had a quiet chat to him on the evening of 10 October you may recall:

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24588155-5006010,00.html

I was following events very closely at the time and got the distinct impression that Mr Bush must have whispered something along the lines of the following in Rudd’s ear at that time -- “Kev, America has a serious problem -- So kid, you better believe you’ve got one too!” to see the amazing backflip he did at the time.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24588155-5006010,00.html

The media got all sidetracked later re that phone call as to whether Mr Bush knew what the G-20 was. Useless.

So yes, anyone who thinks Kev (and even less the media) has any idea how this is going pan out is listening to the wrong people. But I’m very happy to get whatever hints I can from the likes of Das.

I want to have a good close look at the major recessions we have some history on. To try to get some sort of vague feel for the possibilities myself.

Re 1987, one thing that seems very similar to this time around re the American markets at least was that there was a panic with a sudden crash resulting. Pretty much from a high in 1987. And from a she’s going down, but these things happen and it must all turn around soon mentality in America this time.

I know I need to do a lot more reading on it all though.

Thanks for posting the links. Das makes some interesting points and I guess we will only know in a couple of years if he was right or wrong.

I agree that the 1970′s is also an interesting period to look at especially when we consider that in the U.K big government spending actually made the situation worse, not better. I am guessing Rudd hopes his spending plans are more successful!

http://www.eurointelligence.com/article.581+M54f756d50c9.0.html

He is described as follows: Satyajit Das is a risk consultant and author of Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives (2006, FT-Prentice Hall).

A few months back, Das changed his tune to something along the lines of “Inflation might better” -- As in he’d had a real good chance to think about just how badly the real world was going to get hurt, as opposed to just a few naughty banks maybe?

I saw him quoted very recently by a freebie American stock market commentator who is really quite limited (in my opinion) -- But I follow him because he sometimes references Das. At one level the freebie seemed relatively bright and breezy:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/in-an-economic-desert-signs-of-life.aspx

“This sort of muddling through is probably the next phase of the economic cycle. The path ahead that seemed so foggy six months ago is clearing up. It’s not a walk through a rose garden, but neither is it the twisted path in a dark forest filled with ogres that it seemed in November.”

While re Das he commented:

“Satyajit Das, the international banking specialist who has helped guide us along this path for the past two years, told me over the weekend that the chance of collapse now is lower but the chance of a prolonged period of low growth is higher — more like the 1960s and ’70s than the 1930s.

If that’s the case, then a rotational market environment like the one described last week will become more likely, as investors capable of riding rolling waves of liquidity and hope in certain sectors like cyclicals or retailers, and exiting just after they crest, will be successful, and those who try to hold through it all will suffer.”

I know you see similarities between the 1987 crash and now, but what I’m seeing is stuff way more closely aligned with the 1970′s stagflation times.