Links 26 July 2012

Global Macro:

  • Former UBS chief doubts criminal intent over Libor (Reuters)
  • Libor design flawed says Geithner (BBC News)
  • Since 2012 Is 2011, What Comes Next Is Not Pretty…(Zero Hedge)

North America:



  •  China May Refrain From More Easing, IMF Official Says (Zero Hedge)


  • RBA has room to cut rates (AFR)
  • Economy in great shape but vigilance required (AFR)
  • Inflation slowdown not enough for rate cute (AFR)
  • FTA can’t be relaxed for China, says Emerson (AFR)
  • Fears about over-density on the rise (The Age)
  • Aus governmen’s borrowing costs cheapest in a century (The Age)
  • States at war over GST overhaul (The Australian)


  1. The U.S. Debt Load: Big and Cheap (Wall Street Journal)

    It is extraordinary that the writer thinks the debt is OK because it is so cheap. It’s been made cheap BECAUSE you have so much of it! Then because it is cheap you get a whole lot more of it! At the same time you get less and less savings. Round and round in a downward spiral.
    It all works while the world is willing to send goods and resources to the US in exchange for bits of paper. As the interest rates trend to zero that paper becomes more and more worthless. Slowly the world is waking up to the fact. It all works until it doesn’t.

  2. From The Cupboard story today, re Labor burying Treasury costings of Greens policies:

    “I don’t think that taxpayers should fund the costing of policies of a political party absent the public being able to see those costings,” Mr Fitzgibbon told The Australian. “If the taxpayer is funding the costings of minor parties, they should be able to access the results.”

    Yet another example of the despicable double standards of our political class.

    Perhaps Fitzgibbon would also like put on record a statement of his support for releasing all the assumptions underpinning Treasury’s projections for the MRRT, which have been withheld from public scrutiny citing “commercial in confidence”?

    Thought not.

    The Big 3 foreign-owned mining companies who designed the MRRT 2.0 would not be happy about that.

  3. “Universities must adopt the campaign tactics of the mining industry if they are to have any chance against oppressive government regulation and fee structures”

    Good enough for the miners, good enough for the uni’s. Nicew to see they’ve learned to challenge oppressive government from a real world example!

    The media next. 🙂

    • They’d be far better off learning how to cut their admin costs and focus on frontline earners…. I don’t hold much hope…

      • Who are the frontline earners in a Uni?

        A friend is Prof of XXX at Uxx, overseer of a keenly contested degree. The Prof earns less than most in the resources sector (some of which are friends and rels I have had the opportunity to assist, but in my view, often too young for such salaries), burdened by admin paperwork, demands of paper presentation, ‘showing the face’ (he has a family and personal interests) and the shock that came to him only a couple of years back – that Uxx was a business and he a mere cog in the wheel.

        Uni’s now need to service a wide deli of degrees, many of which are of dubious quality – stretching finite resources too far IMO. Get back to basics.

        • The frontline earners are those that publish and generate research income. They are also typically the best teachers.

          The proliferation of coordinators, facilitators, marketers, managers, executive managers, etc is an unbelievable burden as it reflects directly on the admin load imposed on the frontline earners like your mate. Can you imagine having to fill in a form to tell the Graduate Office that a PhD student has returned from holidays? Please.

          I disagree about the business comment – they may think they run a business, but it’s no business model I’ve ever seen before.