It's funny how people keep talking about The Land of Plenty as if it's a book about the Howard era when in fact the 'big idea' at the heart of the book is that we're at the end of two thirty year cycles, the first based around economic protectionism and the centrality of governments, the second based around deregulation and the centrality of markets. It seemed a novel idea when I was writing late last year and earlier this year, albeit one that's since been realised in ways I'd never wish for.

The basis of my thinking wasn't to do with any particular government (the vast majority of the book was written in the belief that Rudd would win, then in the first few months of the government), so much as the whole political and economic system, which I believed then and believe now to be unsustainable. We seemed to be living in an 'economic fool's paradise', as I put it, where a decade and a half of economic growth had been fueled by consumer spending funded by easy credit, and then a commodities boom. The whole thing was a house of cards. A Very Public Sociologist has since put together a convincing summation that points out how the whole edifice was balanced rather precariously on rising housing prices. John Quiggin's recent posts have also been excellent. And an erudite summary of last week's events can be found at LP. Howard? Rudd? It wasn't going to make much difference.

But the thing that amazes me, speaking as a non-economist, is the idea that the collapse should be a surprise. Read more . . .