Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Lost in an Australian podcast where currency decays, cathedrals are built, and London women are an inch taller

transcriber's picture

Karl Fitzgerald: A monoculture of money, I haven’t really heard that.

Deirdre Kent: Yes, well, let’s look at two civilizations. Let’s look at the period in Europe between 1040 and 1290 where there were two currencies in every area. The lord of the land issued the currency for the land. He also owned the land. So there was a currency that he’d issued here but there was also a trading currency of gold. So we had gold as one currency for trading and a local currency within that fiefdom or that area that the lord or the baron, in all European areas. But the currency was a currency which was a decaying currency. Every now and then he would re-mint the currency, and you brought in five of your coins and only got four in return. So that meant people spent and the currency flowed because they had to spend it; it was going to be worth less. It’s like inflation, but it affects everybody, and it affects those who hoard, so it’s a tax on those who hoard the currency. And Bernard Lietaer has developed in his books a lot of the story of how important it was to have a decaying currency as well as the gold, and that that was responsible for the building of all the cathedrals, for maintenance of equipment during this period, the maintenance of everything like waterwheels and wine presses, and the poor people were relatively well off and they were well fed, and he says that the women of London were actually an inch taller than they are today. I think that’s right, but certainly they were so well nourished, four meals a day was common.

Transcript below the fold.

Am I turning neofeudal?

I've got a Renegade Economists podcast from Australia that I downloaded December 20 with some really intriguing ideas, and mysteries. It's a year-end collage of show highlight clips, not well identified. What is this show? Who are these people talking? How did I get sent to it? I expect it was from something I read here or on Naked Capitalism, but I can't find it again. Lost. Wander.

The podcast is here, the Renegade Economists radio program website is here, a list of their podcasts is here, a Wikipedia mention is here, and btw it looks like it's not related to The Renegade Economist Show (youtube, "no podcasts yet"). Also, the Renegade Economists are Georgist, which wikipedia tells me Marx said was "capitalism's last ditch," so... feudalism, what?

From the program notes: "2013 Collage: featuring highlights of the year including Terry Dwyer, Steve Keen, Deidre Kent, Michael Hudson, David Richardson (tai.org.au), Jane Frances Kelley (Grattan) and John Jamieson." The above quote in the feudal segment gave date between 1040 and 1290, which puts this in Charter of the Forest territory and the time of commons, so I'm interested. But I didn't hear anyone use the word commons.

Sources for clips given at transcript bottom. I can't believe I looked them all up. I think I'm hooked.

* * *

Renegade Economists
3CR, 855 AM, Melbourne Australia radio
December 17, 2013
Year-end collage of show highlights

TRANSCRIPT

3CR, radio that’s independent, progressive and making a difference.

Terry Dwyer: Queen Elizabeth the First had to apologize.

Queen Elizabeth the First had to apologize to Parliament in her Golden Speech of about 1601 for the fact that she had dished out too many monopoly grants to her courtiers and they were busy oppressing the population by mercilessly exploiting their privileges.

* * *

Karl Fitzgerald, host: David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, was in the press the other week promoting his help-to-buy scheme, saying, “Look, you know, I don’t want to be the Prime Minister that stands by whilst only kids of rich parents can access the housing market.”

* * *

John Jamieson: Until we can generate that enthusiasm among the electorate, we’re going to continually be dumbed down by the orchestra leaders who run the two major parties.

John Jamieson: We as electors and people who are called upon to vote must start nailing our representatives locally. We must get at them and present our case, how they must start to represent our interests ahead of party political interests. Until we can generate that enthusiasm among the electorate, we’re going to continually be dumbed down by the orchestra leaders who run the two major parties. Unfortunately big corporation interests funded by big international banking cartel members want to silence this. They don’t want you and I to understand better how we can make a better life goal, and that’s why I’ve always tended to be an individual outspoken person that wants to see his community develop and empower people, get them to speak up, get them to go to council meetings, get them to bang on the doors of the politicians and make sure their voices are heard, because that’s the only way I think we’re going to change things in the coming three years.

* * *

Karl Fitzgerald: So there’s something dysfunctional with the market that’s going on, and that’s why we need to renovate our housing policy. So, tell us about these tax concessions for property investors. You had some pretty interesting figures quantifying just how great they were for, you know, the high-income property investor. Really, they’re cleaning up.

Jane-Frances Kelly: Yes, we find the tax concessions for residential property investors are worth over 9,000 dollars per household in the highest income quintile compared to just over 3½ thousand dollars for the lowest income quintile.

. . .

Karl Fitzgerald: And because of these pressures, you know, that was quite an eye opener, seeing that it takes four times the average wage to save up for a deposit now...

Jane-Frances Kelly: More Australians are renting. They’re renting for longer. The median age of the head of rental households is now 37, so we’re renting kind of further into our lives, and one of the things that that means is you will have more families with children in renting. Children really benefit from stability. I mean, everybody benefits from the ability to plan ahead and so on, but children in particular, it’s good to not to feel like you might have to pull your children out of their school at any time for 30 days’ notice.

. . .
Jane-Frances Kelly: There are a lot of government tax breaks and subsidies once you’re in home ownership. But ironically the way that some of those policies are designed is making it harder to get into home ownership for first-time buyers.

Karl Fitzgerald: You show how much of an advantage it is for people once they do have a house to accumulate further wealth.

Jane-Frances Kelly: Yeah, that’s right, there are a lot of government tax breaks and subsidies once you’re in home ownership. But ironically the way that some of those policies are designed is making it harder to get into home ownership for first-time buyers. But what you say is absolutely true. The owner-occupied family home is one of the most tax-efficient savings vehicles and investment vehicles that’s around.

* * *

Saul Eslake: This is a pretty large subsidy from people who are working and saving to people who are borrowing and speculating.

Saul Eslake: This is a pretty large subsidy from people who are working and saving to people who are borrowing and speculating.

* * *

Steve Keen: They still haven’t really admitted what it amounts to, because again when you deal with conventional economists, the vast majority of them completely ignore the mechanics of money creation. And I've forgotten the particular exchange, but it was Cullen Roche. You may see Cullen Roche’s stuff on Blogspot regularly, and there’s another guy called Sumner who’s a well-known neoclassical, and Cullen Roche was trying to explain the reasons why quantitative easing wasn’t having the impacts that were being expected, and he said it’s all a bit about the double-entry bookkeeping and banking practice and so on. And Sumner wrote back saying, “I’m not – I’m interested in macroeconomics, I don’t give a shit, effectively, about accounting.” Now if you don’t know the accounting, it’s a bit like saying I'm going to work out how biology, how cells work without understanding molecular biology. So let’s whack cyanide inside the cell because I think that’ll work well. It’s naiveté of the first order to argue that.

Steve Keen: Now if they were printing 85 billion and handing it over to Main Street, that would definitely have caused a recovery. Instead they’re still complaining about how anemic this all is.

But when you look at quantitative easing, what that is doing is buying assets, generally speaking, off the banks, which increases the liability side of the Federal Reserve account. That actually increases the asset side of the private banks, but they lend on their liability side, so the money that’s being created by that is remaining in the circuit of the Federal Reserve rather than making it down to Main Street where it’s needed, and it’s inflating asset prices more in an indirect way than directly, but certainly causing inflation in asset prices. But it’s a trivial mechanism, given – you’re putting 85 billion dollars, a billion dollars a month into the markets. That was far less effective than doing what people actually think QE is, which is printing 85 billion dollars a month. Now if they were printing 85 billion and handing it over to Main Street, that would definitely have caused a recovery. Instead they’re still complaining about how anemic this all is.

So to me it’s a bit of a storm in a teacup. It’s similar to what the Japanese have been doing for 2½ decades, without at the same time running the fiscal deficits the Japanese have done that actually is what stopped them falling, you know, through the gurgler of debt deflation. So I don’t, I think it’s focusing our attention on an ineffective policy.

* * *

Deirdre Kent: It is a subset of nature and we’re dependent on nature, but the economy is a system and I think it’s really important to look at it as a system, and that to touch just one, to interfere with just one element, is not, is going to have a knock-on effect because every system, the money system and the tax system are very much intertwined and the benefit system and so on, so everything is connected, and we’re in the world of hyperconnectivity globally now, so just looking at our own economy it’s important to think of it as a living system.

Karl Fitzgerald: And nature gives us plenty of hints in how one plant can feed the other, and it’s all interconnected, and what you’re saying really is that the current economic system has some blockages set up that we really don’t realize are in place.

Deirdre Kent: The one that I notice most of course is that money isn’t flowing. It isn’t flowing into investment. It’s flowing into land speculation and has been for a long time. So we’ve got a currency which by nature is designed and issued by the private banks for profit at interest, and so this is the main blockage, the design of the currency and the fact that it’s a monoculture too.

Karl Fitzgerald: And nature gives us plenty of hints in how one plant can feed the other, and it’s all interconnected, and what you’re saying really is that the current economic system has some blockages set up that we really don’t realize are in place, and for you what are some of the important blockages we need to recognize and start to comprehend?

Deirdre Kent: The one that I notice most of course is that money isn’t flowing. It isn’t flowing into investment. I mean, very clearly it’s flowing into land speculation and has been for a long time. It’s also flowing to the big cities of Auckland and Christchurch. So we’ve got a currency which by nature is designed and issued by the private banks for profit at interest, and so this is the main blockage, the design of the currency and the fact that it’s a monoculture too.

Karl Fitzgerald: A monoculture of money, I haven’t really heard that.

Deirdre Kent: Yes, well, let’s look at two civilizations. Let’s look at the period in Europe between 1040 and 1290 where there were two currencies in every area. The lord of the land issued the currency for the land. He also owned the land. So there was a currency that he’d issued here but there was also a trading currency of gold. So we had gold as one currency for trading and a local currency within that fiefdom or that area that the lord or the baron, in all European areas. But the currency was a currency which was a decaying currency. It was, um, he – every now and then he would re-mint the currency, and you brought in five of your coins and only got four in return. So that meant people spent and the currency flowed because they had to spend it; it was going to be worth less. It’s like inflation, but it affects everybody, and it affects those who hoard, so it’s a tax on those who hoard the currency. And Bernard Lietaer has developed in his books a lot of the story of how important it was to have a decaying currency as well as the gold, and that that was responsible for the building of all the cathedrals, for maintenance of equipment during this period, the maintenance of everything like waterwheels and wine presses, and the poor people were relatively well off and they were well fed, and he says that the women of London were actually an inch taller than they are today. I think that’s right, but certainly they were so well nourished, four meals a day was common.

. . .

Karl Fitzgerald: So what are some modern examples of this sort of dual currency operation in place?

What we need is a bigger currency, a bigger complementary currency, and I actually agree with Adrian Wrigley in that the natural currency is one backed by land.

Deirdre Kent: Well, we don’t have too much in the way of modern designs apart from a huge number of complementary currencies at local level. You know, you get your time banks and your let systems and a wide variety of other systems which Bernard and other writers have, and in my book, have documented. But what we need is a bigger currency, a bigger complementary currency, and I actually agree with Adrian Wrigley in that the natural currency is one backed by land. I mean, it is the ultimate. And when people are designing a local currency they would like it to be backed by land because that is the natural backing.

* * *

Michael Hudson: We’re talking pension funds?

Karl Fitzgerald: Yeah, we’re talking pension funds, I suppose that’s the American term for it, but there’s some talk now, because Australians have to deposit some 10 to 12 percent of their income each pay into their pension plan, that they should be able to access that money to pay the huge deposits where you’re having to put down, you know, some 70 or 80,000 dollars just as a deposit to be able to enter the real estate market.

Michael Hudson: This is possibly the worst economic policy that any country could come up with. It means that people are going to use their retirement funds to pay banks now to push up real estate prices and then when it comes time to retire the big crash will come, property will fall 40%, they will lose all their equity and they will be living out in the street just like people in Detroit, people in Chicago, people in Spain, people in Greece. This is a total wipeout.

Michael Hudson: This is possibly the worst economic policy that any country could come up with. It means that people are supposed to end up being poo– they’re going to use their retirement funds to pay banks now to push up real estate prices and then when it comes time to retire the big crash will come, property will fall 40%, they will lose all their equity and they will be living out in the street just like people in Detroit, people in Chicago, people in Spain, people in Greece. This is a total wipeout. And it doesn’t have to be this way.

Let’s look at the alternative. Australia has a very anti-labor policy. Both your major parties are in America what would be called extreme right-wing, extremely controlled by the bankers. A real social democratic or labor policy would do the following: They would not treat the pension funds and Social Security, retirement, as a user fee. They would say, “Let’s pay this out of progressive taxation. Let’s tax the mines, the mineral exports. Let’s tax the economic rent and also the land rent," so that instead of paying more and more money to the banks for houses, you would essentially be paying taxes to the government on land instead of paying an income tax, instead of paying the current policy, and you would have progressive taxation. That was what every economist in the 19th Century believed, it’s what the Social Democratic Party believed, it’s what the Australian Labor Party used to believe before it turned around and said we should tax labor, not capital, because now we’re getting our campaign contributions and all of our support from the mining sector, from the financial sector, from the business sector, so all of a sudden your Labor Party has turned into an anti-labor party.

. . .

Michael Hudson: Once you privatize the roads or public transportation or railroads or communications, all of a sudden you add on interest charges, financial charges, exorbitant executive salaries, stock dividends – you add a whole set of charges that all of a sudden are built into the prices so that instead of providing basic public services, basic needs at cost or at subsidized prices, all of a sudden you’ve financialized these prices and the prices go way, way up. And the monopolists call that a free market, and it’s exactly the opposite kind of a free market that Adam Smith and other 19th century economists talked about.

* * *

Karl Fitzgerald: You’re on the Renegade Economists. This is a mashup with some of the highlights of the year. Coming up is David Richardson from The Australia Institute discussing his electricity privitization.

. . .

Karl Fitzgerald: You’re saying that since privatization, the number of managers has increased from 6,000 to 19,000, a 217% increase in management numbers?

David Richardson: That’s right. So the number of managers per worker has fallen from 1 in 13, to 1 in 9.

Karl Fitzgerald: Wow. And so there’s a 59% productivity differential between the rest of the economy and supposedly this new privatized, lean, mean electricity industry. And when you look at the theory of natural monopolies, they always say that really because there’s such a large start-up cost in the investment in building the generation plants, the poles and wires, and getting the distribution set up, that it’s best organized by one main seller, one main producer. But we’re being told that the economies of scale that such a situation would naturally provide can be outcompeted by having more rate towers, more generators. But from what you’re saying, that’s just not the case.

David Richardson: No, that’s right. And when you think about it, it’s crazy that you’ve got 6,000 salespeople trying to sell us something that, you know, sells itself.

Karl Fitzgerald: Yeah. It really should, shouldn’t it? Cheap energy is one of the core inputs for business, for the household, and we’re told that a market system with just a few sellers rather than one is probably – well, there’s quite a few, aren’t there? There’s probably 15 or 16 in Victoria in the retail industry. But they can’t push down that base price, can they?

David Richardson: If you came up with a proposal that we should have another set of poles and wires and let it compete against the existing set of poles and wires, everybody would laugh at you. But...

David Richardson: Well, they certainly don’t seem able to. If you came up with a proposal that, you know, we should have another set of poles and wires and let it compete against the existing set of poles and wires, everybody would laugh at you. But what they’ve done is set up a system whereby instead of, you know, one [18:05 least?] efficient billing system, for example, all the providers now have their own duplicate billing systems. And, you know, so it goes with, you know, the HR sections, the accountants that are employed by these firms, and so on and so forth.

In the meantime, one of the things that we’ve remarked on elsewhere is the research and development in this industry is well below the average of the rest of Australian industry, and when you think about it, we’ve now got the challenge of moving from fossil fuel to renewables, and all of this, all of the alternative technology is rapidly changing and a lot of it’s still fairly experimental, as in the case of geothermal and those sorts of things, yet the electricity industry spends very little on R&D.

. . .

Karl Fitzgerald: These are the sort of statements that we really need to see buzzing around on the Internet, that prices have gone up some 170%, that’s 110% above CPI since 1995, and the increase in managers up by 217%. But one of the other main factors that comes into the cost disadvantage of privatization is the process of bidding and actually buying whatever component of the electricity industry you’re involved in. That element can be quite costly.

David Richardson: It’s hard to actually put your finger on that, but in the old days, you know, you had a couple of engineers running the joint. They would supply electricity from their generators to the consumer without worrying about, you know, buying and selling on the national energy market, although that was there to help them cope with emergencies. But now we’ve got a big marketing team and professionals who are watching the market all the time and putting in bids and offers – it just seems crazy.

* * *

Terry Dwyer: That is one of the big problems of the type of privatized monopoly we’ve got, whether it’s water, electricity or gas, is all these companies can revalue their assets or dispose of them, pocket a profit and then buy them back or mark them up, and the way the system works it’s called depreciated optimized replacement cost.

Terry Dwyer: That is one of the big problems of the type of privatized monopoly we’ve got, whether it’s water, electricity or gas, is all these companies can revalue their assets or dispose of them, pocket a profit and then buy them back or mark them up, and the way the system works it’s called depreciated optimized replacement cost. The theory is that consumers should only be charged the efficient cost of delivering the water or electricity or gas that they’re using. But. They have an engineering approach to this. They say that the efficient cost is what you would need to replace the infrastructure in its present condition as efficiently as possible, so that’s why they say it’s depreciated. Optimized, it’s reengineered to be as efficient as possible. Replacement cost, and the big sting in that is replacement cost, because with inflation a dam which cost, say, 100 million pounds in 1955 might be worth 2 billion dollars now.

And I’ll give you an example of how this works against consumers. Take, for example, Sydney water. The New South Wales treasury in about the 1880s sold all the water assets of Sydney into a new board that was set up representing local councils around Sydney. It sold them to this board, and thereafter from the 1880s right through to the 1980s the ratepayers of Sydney were levied through rates to pay for the dams, the pipes, and all the costs of collecting and storing and delivering clean drinking water. And this of course was a public health measure as much as anything else because Sydney had had, like most cities, had had stinky, dirty, filthy, cholera-ridden water at various times. Typhoid was something they were worried about. After all, Prince Albert died of water-borne diseases.

So from the 1880s to the 1980s, the New South Wales treasury did not pay a cent for the water infrastructure of Sydney, and in the 1950s when Sydney looked as though it needed more water, the water board raised loans to build Warragamba Dam and it paid those loans off over many years through rates on the landholders and the householders of Sydney. And that was fair enough, because after all if you’re a landholder the availability and the provision of drinking water for you or available to your site obviously adds value to your land. Serviced land which has water available is more valuable than land in the sticks that doesn’t. So that was a fair system because in a sense the site value of the land represented the value of the amenities being provided to it.

Well, anyway, when – so Warragamba Dam was paid for by the ratepayers of Sydney. The state treasury never paid a cent.

In the 1980s, under this wave of reform or corporatization, the New South Wales government got rid of the Sydney water board, removed the representation of the councils in it, and replaced it, turned it into a corporation owned by the state treasury.

It’s as though somebody went into your house and said, “Thank you very much, Karl. You’ve got a nice house here. You’ve paid off the mortgage. Now I’m taking it over, I’ve got the government to transfer the legal title to me. Now you can still use your house, but it’s efficient that you pay me top market rent on what I could get for the house now and I’ll keep increasing the rent each year as I revalue the house with inflation. And thank you very much.”

Now this is interesting. The state treasury took over control of about 5 billion dollars worth of assets, or whatever they’re worth, for which it had never paid tuppence ha'penny. They then said, “Oh, look, with this new economic theory of efficient pricing for utilities, we should now go around and revalue all the assets of the Sydney water board, and here it is 5 billion dollars, and to be efficient we should make sure a return is charged on that capital, so the treasury’s entitled to an indexed rate of return on this replacement cost of these assets, so we should set prices so as to be able to give us a dividend of 500 million a year," or whatever it was. So the water users of Sydney were being charged a rate of return on assets that effectively had been stolen from them. It’s as though somebody went into your house and said, “Thank you very much, Karl. You’ve got a nice house here. You’ve paid off the mortgage. Now I’m taking it over, I’ve got the government to transfer the legal title to me. Now you can still use your house, but it’s efficient that you pay me top market rent on what I could get for the house now and I’ll keep increasing the rent each year as I revalue the house with inflation. And thank you very much.”

* * *

John Jamieson: To my mind, the inherited wealth of Australia belongs to each and every one of the residents, ratepayers and citizens that belong to Australia. The government should always remember they are being elected to represent the best interests of the community. If the community has its resources, whether it be land, minerals, oil, petroleum, whatever it might be, on land, under the land, on the ocean, under the ocean, these are the resources on which all life is being sustained, and it’s incumbent on any reasonable government to acknowledge the fact that we should enjoy a reasonable share of these resources for our mutual benefit and improvement of our life.

John Jamieson: I think it’s fairly obvious to everyone I’ve ever met around the planet, everyone is seeking life, liberty and happiness, and to achieve that I’ve never been attacked, annoyed, held to ransom by anyone with a full belly and a roof over their heads and something useful to do in their time, using their labor.

I think it’s fairly obvious to everyone I’ve ever met around the planet, and I’ve worked largely on all five continents at one stage in my life – everyone is seeking life, liberty and happiness, and to achieve that I’ve never been attacked, annoyed, held to ransom by anyone with a full belly and a roof over their heads and something useful to do in their time, using their labor. That’s [27:48/6:00 ___] common denominator amongst all the human beings is our mental capacity to improve our lot and offer our labor, and when these things are being penalized, the resources taken and distributed to powerful corporations – most of them incidentally have their major offices overseas and they launder all these resources when they turn it into income, which we call money. This is then taken out of circulation. The government’s minimalist tax policies are ridiculous. I think – I can’t see why a Clive Palmer or a Gina Rinehart or an Alan Bond or any of these big boys have any divine right to secure for their private gain what is actually a community resource.

* * *

Karl Fitzgerald: As we finish up the year, you’re on 3CR’s Renegade Economists, there with John Jamieson summing up how some have supposed legal privilege over the earth. The rest of us have to work and pay for the right to exist. So my name’s Karl Fitzgerald. Send me a Christmas present, renegades@earthsharing.org, that are you telling me where you listen to this show each and every week. I’ll be back with you in early January, so read well out there, look after yourself, and why not try some speed reading?

This is David Rovingson. You are tuned to 3CR, 855 AM, Melbourne, Australia.

Step three is finding there’s a tactic
When everyone believes it could be true
That if all the people work collectively
There just might be something we can do
And everything can change.

* * *

_______________

SOURCES (original podcasts that clips are taken from are in italics)

Dr. Terry Dwyer, Privatisation = Disguised Corporate Taxation, Renegade Economists podcast 292, 6/5/2013

0:20 Terry Dwyer: (3:34) Queen Elizabeth the First had to apologize...

0:46 Karl Fitzgerald, host: (@7:35 in Jane-Frances Kelly podcast) David Cameron...

John Jamieson, Western Australia surveyor, Renegade Economists 9/11/13

1:15 John Jamieson: (19:05) We as electors and people who...

Jane-Frances Kelly, Grattan Institute Cities Program Director, discussing her report Renovating Housing Policy (PDF), Renegade Economists 10/23/13

2:39 Karl Fitzgerald: (@16:55) So there’s something dysfunctional...
Jane-Frances Kelly: Yes, we find the tax concessions...

Karl Fitzgerald: (@7:05) And because of these pressures...
Jane-Frances Kelly: (@12:00) More Australians are renting...

Karl Fitzgerald: (@3:09) You show how much of an advantage...
Jane-Frances Kelly: Yeah, that’s right...

Saul Eslake, 50 Years of Housing Failure, Renegade Economists 9/4/13

4:55 Saul Eslake: (@20:39) This is a pretty large subsidy...

Steve Keen, Renegade Economists 10/16/2013

5:03 - Steve Keen: (@10:35) They still haven’t...

Deirdre Kent, New Zealand's New Economics Party, Dual Currency Flows, Renegade Economists 10/9/2013

7:20 Deirdre Kent: (@10:59) It is a subset of nature...

Karl Fitzgerald: (@15:43) So what are some...
Deirdre Kent: Well, we don’t have too much...

Michael Hudson, Renegade Economists 300th podcast 7/31/13

12:28 Michael Hudson: (@9:16) We’re talking pension funds?

Michael Hudson: (@ 19:30) Once you privatize the roads...

David Richardson, Research Fellow at The Australia Institute, discussing his report
Electricity and privatisation: what happened to those promises?, Renegade Economists 5/29/2013

15:55 Karl Fitzgerald: (@4:54) You’re saying that since privatization...
David Richardson: That’s right.

Karl Fitzgerald: (@8:17) These are the sort of statements...
David Richardson: It’s hard to actually put your finger on that...

Dr. Terry Dwyer, Privatisation = Disguised Corporate Taxation, Renegade Economists podcast 292, 6/5/2013

21:10 Dr. Terry Dwyer: (@15:01) That is one of the big problems...

John Jamieson, Western Australia surveyor, Renegade Economists 9/11/13

26:16 John Jamieson: (@ 4:31) To my mind, the inherited wealth of Australia...

 

0
No votes yet
Updated: