New Zealand's Property Market – dysfunctional by design

The affordability of housing in New Zealand or lack thereof has been the subject of endless commentary and it is undeniable that, relative to income levels, housing in parts of New Zealand, specifically Auckland, is very expensive both to buy and to rent. Demands that the government do something to make housing more affordable for buyers and renters alike have been continuous for probably the best part of a decade now. In spite of which, house prices have continued to march upwards as have rents to a much lesser degree.

Both the centre-left National government which held office until the 2017 election and the far-left Labour led coalition which subsequently took power took a number of steps with the announced intention of making housing more affordable and raising the quality of rental accommodation. These are laudable objectives. Unfortunately, the actions taken or announced by both parties have had, and were always going to have, precisely the opposite effect. Put simply, the laws of supply and demand have, time and again, proven to be more powerful than government decree.

Taxes make housing more expensive

It remains a rather inconvenient fact that capital gains taxes act as a deterrent to selling. People don't line up to pay taxes that they can legitimately avoid by not selling. New Zealand experienced this with the 1972 Labour Government's disastrous "property speculation" tax which did more to push property prices higher than the OPEC led double digit inflation of the time. Far from punishing speculators, it made them rich at the expense of people trying to get a foothold on the property ladder. The causative link between capital gains taxes and higher property prices has been a near-universal experience. Australia in the 1990s and Hong Kong over the last decade serve as other examples. There's an academic study by the Swiss National Bank which essential explains that people respond to incentives. So it should come as no surprise that when the National government introduced a two year bright line test, property prices continued higher. Labour is extending the bright line test to five years because, in the words of Revenue Minister Stuart Nash   "This proposal will ensure residential property speculators pay income tax on their gains and makes property speculation less attractive." Nash is also promising a "comprehensive" capital gains tax regime. Leaving aside the fact that Nash is in ignorance of existing tax laws which make activities carried on for the purpose of making a gain taxable so that any one who carries on business as a property speculator should already paying tax, history and Economics 101 will tell us that, absent other factors, these taxes will have the opposite effect on housing prices.

The only example I can think of where capital gains taxes co-incided with lowering of property prices is Singapore. However, Singapore also introduced draconian transaction taxes on foreign buyers and domestic investors as well as ensuring a significant increase in the supply of new housing. The former would have reduced demand and the latter made more stock available to the smaller pool of potential buyers – so no surprise that prices fell.

The rental market is also subject to the law of supply and demand

New Zealand also suffers from a shortage of good quality rental accommodation at affordable rental levels. Or so politicians, the media and other groups keep telling us. And yes, there is some really awful rental stock out there. With the announced intention of either removing "unfair" tax advantages held by property investors or making sure that rental properties are warm and safe for tenants, a succession of legislative changes were made including the abolition of depreciation allowances (even though depreciation is a very real expense) and mandatory requirements for the installation of smoke detectors and insulation.  We now have proposals to increase the required notice period to evict a tenant and to have an annual "warrant of fitness" requirement for rental accommodation. All of these are a significant cost which is supposedly going to be cheerfully borne by the wealthy landlords along with rates demands which seem to increase by more than the rate of inflation every year. Unfortunately, as any economics student will be able to explain in jargon-free English, increased costs lead to reduced supply. Given that some of the expenses are flat fee items rather than percentage items, the impact will be felt most acutely at the lower end of the market (i.e. where more rental accommodation is most needed). Expect to see more articles about New Zealand's Rental Crisis and the Reduction in Rental Stock as this plays out and the incentives to invest in residential real estate are inverted into disincentives.

As a real example, after paying rates, agency fees, repairs, taxes etc only 37% of the gross rent received on my single Auckland rental property ended up in my pocket. Based on the latest rates valuation, that's a yield of less than 0.6% (six tenths of one percent). And that's in a good year with 52 weeks' occupancy and no major repair bills. Even if I doubled the rent, it's still a lousy investment.

And government policy is to make the situation worse

The shiny new government's announced initiatives include scrapping a number of plans to expand existing roads or build new ones as well as building new low-cost housing areas on the far fringes of Auckland. It's not hard to predict the outcome: the already desperately congested roads will become even more congested with a combination of population growth and people having to commute longer distances to work adding to the number of cars on the roads. The uncosted light railway to Auckland Airport will be an ultra-expensive irrelevance to almost all commuters.

And the proposed prohibition on foreign investment in New Zealand residential property, the one thing the Labour government promised which would have had some impact on the demand for property is, I am told, being reconsidered.

Short version

Investing in rental property in New Zealand is discouraged as a matter of government policy and government practice. Expect to see rental accommodation continue to become more expensive and harder to find as rational investors invest elsewhere.

As an investor myself, I have abandoned plans to invest further in New Zealand residential property but will keep my existing property as a store of wealth and a portfolio diversifier in spite of the almost non-existent yield.

Fraud prevention is a pain

While I appreciate the efforts that banks take to combat credit card fraud, two different banks have now caused me inconvenience through poor handling of the issue:

Bank A: bounced a cheque because I did not pick up the phone when they called to query the payment as a suspected fraud. (I was on a plane at the time.)  What was not explained to me is why they thought it was a fraud in the first place? The cheque was payable to a reputable financial institution and to which I write several cheques of similar amounts each year so I do not understand why they would think it might be a fraud? At least they had the decency to reverse the dishonour fee.

Bank B: rejected a credit card payment. Sure the payment was to a new merchant and was for a meaningful amount. So I can understand the bank querying this one. BUT, if they can call me to tell me that they have stopped the payment why couldn't they have called me to query the payment before it was rejected (like Bank A does with cheques)? Bank B's approach of rejecting first and asking questions later is very unimpressive.

In both cases, I told the recipients that the bank thought payment to them was a fraud but I would rather they thought ill of the bank than questioned my financial standing.

100 Years of Currency Debasement

The US Federal Reserve was created on 23 December, 2013. From Wikipedia:

"The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: Maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."

Using this calculator the US has experienced cumulative inflation of 2254.2% since 1913. In other words, the US dollar has lost about 96% of its purchasing power under a century of Federal Reserve oversight.

While many lament the decline in the real value of the dollar and the impact of inflation on savers and fixed income holders, for my part, I believe that the Federal Reserve has done a mostly good job of steering the US economy through two world wars, the great depression, the inflationary oil shocks of the 1970s and economic cycles generally.

Any judgement of the Fed's track record has to take into account (i) that they are operating in an country where the political leaders habitually spend more than the annual tax take, (ii) that the US has remained the largest and (by some measures) most dynamic economy in the world over this time period and (iii) that the US dollar is still the world's dominant reserve and trade currency. Sure, the US's proportionate share of the world economy is shrinking, but this is largely because much of the developing world is belatedly playing economic catch up. For all its many and severe problems, the US has been a better place to live than most of the rest of the world during this time period. Lastly, it also has to be noted that the (on average) mild inflation over the last century has to have been a better outcome than periods of deflation which occurred regularly prior to the Fed's creation.

Of course, the Fed's track record has been far from perfect - contractionary monetary policies at the beginning of the Great Depression unquestionably made that even far worse than expansionary policies would have and we are still being haunted by the very avoidable  bubbles of the Greenspan era.

You just can't make this stuff up

The benefits of China's leathal air pollution: smog bolsters military defenses.

As noted in the comments, it could also be an effective tool for population control.

HK Trailwalker completed

I managed to stumble my way around the Hong Kong Trailwalker on Friday/Saturday. Completing the very hilly 100 km course across the New Territories brings with it a wonderful sense of accomplishment and a lot of pain. I am tempted to do it again, but really need to (i) train harder and smarter and (ii) figure out ways to reduce the blistering on my feet (which was seriously affecting my speed over the last two stages). Having three great team mates and a wonderfully dedicated support team really added to the experience.

Full credit to Oxfam not only for their consistently excellent organisation and management of the event but also for neatly foiling the efforts of selfish and greedy local residents who tried to block the route as a means of extorting land belonging to the Hong Kong people for their own commercial gain. All  the protesters managed to demonstrate is their own arrogance and greed. It is long past time that the ridiculous apartheid-style land ownership claims of the Kuk were dismissed with the contempt that they deserve.

Bitcoins - today's tulip bulbs

There has been plenty written about the Bitcoin craze. Quite frankly, anyone who thinks Bitcoins are a genuine substitute for currencies needs counselling. Consider that:

1. it is not known who creates/issues Bitcoins - do you really want to trust your wealth to what amounts to an anonymous stranger somewhere in cyberspace?

2. Bitcoins are not the only so-called virtual currency. What's to stop more being created?

3. while it is stated that there are limits on the number of Bitcoins that can be created, how can holders be assured that the announced limits will be respected (or are being respected now for that matter)?

4. Bitcoins exist in the hacker-populated world of the Internet. What happens if hackers make another successful attempt at the system?

Bitcoins are only worth what someone else will pay for them. No different from any other real or virtual goods. Like tulip bulbs, cowie shells, Beanie Babies, McSnoopies and a host of other fads, they are worth what people will pay for them and nothing more. Unlike a genuine currency they do not have a universal exchange value and are not widely accepted (not even close).

Sure, fiat currencies have serious issues - most significantly they fail the long term store of value test due to excessive printing by governments and central banks - but Bitcoins suffer from the same issues as fiat currencies and a whole lot of additional issues.

Cyprus Deposit Levy - as dumb as it gets

The proposal to levy a tax steal 6.5% of the first EUR100,000 and 9.9% of amounts over that threshold on all deposits held in banks in Cyprus has to be one of the dumbest political moves in history. Leaving aside the moral implications of arbitrary confiscation of savers' wealth, the practical implications are pretty clear:

1. never put money on deposit with any bank in any country which has anything but the most robust of banking systems, a freely convertible currency and strong recognition of personal property rights. It is a given that all Cypriot banks are now insolvent - no sane person would put anything into them and whatever deposits they hold will be leaving Cyprus at the first opportunity. Further, if I was a depositor with a Cypriot bank, I would withdraw my money as soon as they reopen and then max my credit card to the extent of the amount stolen and refuse to pay it back. Sue me and we can fight it out in court;

2. the Euro is believed by many to have largely held together because money has been fleeing the troubled economies of Greece, Spain Portugal, Italy etc for northern EU members - in particular Germany. The Cypriot bank heist sends a clear message that nationals of countries facing financial difficulties cannot be assured that their money will be safe from confiscation even if parked in German banks in Germany. The negative real return being accepted from German deposits/bonds in exchange for perceived safety of principal now looks like an increasingly bad judgement call. Not only would I expect more money to leave fiscally troubled countries but more money to leave the Euro altogether;

3. people will look for ways to hide their wealth. The loss of confidence in the European banks and the Euro generally will not only accelerate economic contraction/retard economic recovery but will result in more business being done for cash which traditionally is less likely to be reported on tax returns. In effect, tax receipts will be likely to shrink even more than the weak state of the economy would suggest;

4. it goes without saying that Cyprus is finished as an offshore banking centre. I don't know how many jobs will be lost but the loss is likely to be permanent.

Even if the Cyprus parliament decides not to steal depositors' money, the damage is done. The proposal has been raised and the fear that they may try again will linger.

If I had money with any bank in the EU, most of it would be leaving at this stage.

Valentine's Day - and hating it

As Ebeneezer Scrooge might have said; bah, humbug!

Valentine's Day is one of my least favourite days of the year - it's right up there with filing tax returns and the annual visit to the dentist (which is considerably cheaper). The senseless exploitation of (mostly) men in the interests of enriching florists and restaurateurs has to be one of the most effective ways to build resentment and kill romance ever devised. It's as good a method of encouraging family planning as I've come across.

As usual, I will not be letting myself be gouged for overpriced flowers. However, we will be going out for dinner tonight ... we managed to find a place where we can enjoy a quiet meal together without being irked by an over-the-top price tag.

And yes, I am very grateful that Mrs Traineeinvestor's views on Valentine's Day are the same as mine.

Are things really as bad as we think they are?

The Internet is chock full of doom and gloom stories about how the world economy is heading for an inevitable and extreme deterioration. Articles and Internet chat site postings point to all the economic problems which the world is currently grappling with as to support the claims of imminent economic armageddon.

Of course the problems are immense and the solutions are often seen a politically unpalatable: uncontrolled government spending, out-of-control entitlement programmes, bank failures, housing bubbles, rising unemployment, student loans, increased taxes, ever expanding regulatory burdens. peak oil etc etc etc.  Mostly true and all things to seriously worry about.

But in spite of all these problems, the financial world has not ended, most people are still working and there are indeed plenty of positive signs.  Here's a few to consider:

1. US trade: the United States is the biggest single trading nation on earth. You would think that if the global economy were truly contracting and claims of falling demand for Chinese made products were right, US trade numbers would be contracting. They're not. In spite of a small dip so far in 2012, they have been expanding and both imports and exports are well up since the beginning of 2010;

2. PRC imports and exports: reports of the death of China's exports appear to be exaggerated and premature. In fact China's exports and imports have both risen this year;

3. India: industrial production may be slowing but the most recent numbers came in better than expected;

4. US housing: looking good in many areas (not all) and new home building is on the rise. Recent Case-Shiller data would suggest that the market has either bottomed or is recovering;

5. Japan's fading economic miracle: Japan may have all sorts of issues (adverse demographics among them) but GDP per capita on a PPP basis is holding up very well in spite of Japan's deflationary macro backdrop (and no doubt helped by the strong yen);

6. US unemployment: whether the attacks on the most recent US unemployment numbers prove to be correct or merely political spin remains to be seen, but for now it appears to be clear that the US is probably managing to at least absorb the net new entrants to the labour force and may even be doing a bit better than that;

7. poverty is falling: in spite of all the hand wringing about the number of Americans on food stamps, people being unable to afford private housing in Hong Kong,on a global basis the number of people living in absolute poverty continues to fall;

8. US retail sales: it's too early to say whether or not the US consumer is back to doing what they do best but the surprisingly good numbers which came out this month at least put the question on the table.

There are plenty of other stories I could have used to illustrate the point.

Okay, so there is still plenty to worry about. In fact, my inflation depreciated HK$0.02 worth is that there is more to worry about than to celebrate, but it's worth remembering that not all economic and financial news is bad news. Either that or it's time to cut back on the medications.

The problem with socialism in one article

This well written article in the New York Post provides a neat summary with much that is wrong, not only with America's crusade against those who are economically successful, but many other countries as well: too many people claiming an entitlement to live off the assets and income of others.

Politics just got even more surreal than usual

The FT carried a story about the Republican party setting up a commission to consider putting America back on a gold standard.

While this is obviously a sop to the Ron Paul supporters and, even if Romney wins and even if such a commission is established, it won't mean anything since the commission will only have the power to make recommendations. As any student of economic history can point out, the gold standard almost certainly contributed to exacerbating the depth and duration of the Great Depression and other economic contractions that preceded it). While the chances of America readopting a gold standard are about zero, the mere fact that the issue has been raised at all speaks volumes about the politics of the party that puts such a proposal on its agenda.

I maintain that "none of the above" should be an option on all elections.

Of course, if it did happen, the price of gold (as measured in dollars) would skyrocket, gold mining shares would go through the roof and the pace of environmental destruction would accelerate as more mining projects become economically viable, there would be the inevitable rounds of regulation as countries competed to build their gold reserves and, most likely, regulations restricting ownership and export of gold and, possibly, outright confiscation.

Cheering for Standard Chartered

Having read a considerable amount of the press coverage on the allegations being made by a US regulator against Standard Chartered Bank, one can only conclude that this is yet another example of American politics in action - a series of allegations made which are either completely unsubstantiated or blown wildly out of all proportion even before a proper investigation has been made. The spirit of McCarthyism is alive and well.

Hopefully Standard Chartered Bank will continue to vigorously defend themselves (unlike HSBC which tamely rolled over) and all the non-US governments and regulators which failed to stand up to intrusions on their sovereignty like the PATRIOT Act.

I don't own shares in SCB but am very tempted to go and buy a few to show moral support for the latest victim of the US regulators and politicians.

It is long past time that the rest of the world told America's political grandstanders to foxtrot oscar.

Hong Kong's currency peg

The Hong Kong dollar is "pegged"* to the US dollar at the rate of HKD 7.80 = USD 1.00 since 17 October, 1983.

From time to time the peg has been put under pressure - either upwards (as happened a few years ago) or downwards (as happened in the Asian crisis. Given the size of Hong Kong's fiscal reserves relative to the size of the economy, it is a reasonably safe bet that if the peg is ever removed (or adjusted) it will most likely be a voluntary action on the part of the Hong Kong government rather than something imposed by market forces.

But from time to time calls are made for the peg to go with the usual argument being that the peg has the effect of raising inflation (during the Asian crisis/SARS it was blamed for deflation). While the peg does (obviously) affect inflation in Hong Kong, to my mind that is a cheap price to pay for the volatility that would come from a freely floating currency. Joseph Yam (former head of the HKMA) is the most recent person to call for the removal of the peg. (A number of people have commented that his comments on the peg are a weak attempt to divert attention away from the misguided political criticism he took in connection with the minibond saga, but that is another story).

My own HK$0.02 worth is that Hong Kong has benefited from the peg and it is better to keep it - stability, low interest rates, financial safe harbour status and other benefits all flow from the peg. The impact (upwards or downwards) on CPI is a very small price to pay for these benefits.

Property regulation - New Zealand style

Much has been written about the efforts by the Hong Kong government to control increases in the prices of Hong Kong residential property prices - punitive stamp duty rates and more restricted access to mortgage finance.

Other countries have adopted similar measures, including China, Singapore and New Zealand. Given the sate of the New Zealand economy you would have thought that they would be doing everything possible to encourage investment. Sadly not - not only does New Zealand have a set of tenancy laws which are drafted and administered on the principle that landlords are evil parasites and tenants their innocent victims, not only do rates demands (local property taxes) march inexorably upwards each year at rates far beyond either inflation or rental increases but they have now decided that landlords should not be able to claim depreciation on their buildings. Given the already dismal yields, you either have to take a very long term view or conclude that your money is better off invested elsewhere. All this on top of an increase in GST which bumps up my expenses with no corresponding increase in income.

I've concluded that it is very difficult to justify further investment in New Zealand real estate and that investing in shares is a better proposition (much like Hong Kong at the moment, although for different reasons). Given how few companies that I would be interested in are listed in New Zealand, it is more likely that the money will end up in Australia....effectively New Zealand government policy has pushed my money offshore.

And in case you were wondering what set off this rant - I have just done my New Zealand tax return for 2011/2012 and found that due to the elimination of building depreciation my tax bill has gone up by 126 percent.

Quite frankly, it would almost be rational to sell up and move on but the properties still appeal as a long term store of value that will at least throw off enough after tax income to cover some of the costs of time spent in New Zealand each year. Put differently, the one positive from all of this is that the same policies which are squeezing the landlords are also discouraging new investment in a city which has a growing population.

The Euro and reality

The soap opera of the Euro continues to make headlines and drag markets down.

Exactly why anyone would be surprised by the Euro zone's woes is completely beyond me. At the end of the the day the Euro is/was founded on the belief that a group of countries which had long term track records of continually spending more than they take in and increasing their national debt would suddenly become more fiscally responsible if the market imposed sanction of a currency market were taken away from them and they were given the freedom to borrow more money at lower interest rates.

On planet earth we call that enabling behaviour. In the Euro zone it's called monetary policy.

While the losses to the portfolio in recent weeks have more or less unwound the gains made earlier this year, given that I am still a net accumulator of assets (at least for another 7-12 months), I suppose I should be celebrating the opportunity to buy at lower prices. Somehow, I am struggling to do that.

Valentine's Day - YUCK!

I really hate Valentine's Day. Really. The good news is that I am not alone. One on-line poll which I saw, showed that less than 4% of respondents actually "loved" Valentine's Day while in aggregate 43% either thought it was "irritating - geared towards retail" or simply "loath" it. I fall squarely into the latter camp - I hate being ripped off with over priced flowers, overpriced meals, irritated to death by endless advertisements and being forced to participate in an event that has no real meaning whatsoever. It's about as unromantic as you can get.

The good news is that Mrs Traineeinvestor is a very pragmatic person - no flowers on Valentine's Day or Mothers' Day by request.

Even though I usually provide a home cooked dinner by candle light, this year we will be going out just for a change but I do not intend to make a habit out of it. I'd much rather spend a couple of hours in the kitchen cooking up a special meal.

Hong Kong budget - the rise of entitlement

Not unexpectedly, the 2012-2013 HKSAR budget provided numerous give aways to just about very sector of Hong Kong's society with the middle class perhaps benefiting most.

However, the last several years have produced a distinctly worrying trend with government expenditure rising far more rapidly than revenues or GDP growth generally. This is simply not sustainable and it is long past time that the government stopped pandering to political demands and special interests (such as the grossly overpaid civil servants) and taking steps to reduce the number of people taking from the pot of taxpayer funded revenue. This is the root cause of the economic issues which are plaguing the United States and much of Western Europe - too many people taking too much by way of entitlements out of the economic pot. Its been shown to be unsustainable in those countries (and many other places historically) and there is no reason why Hong Kong should be any different.

Given the extreme imbalance between taxpayers and entitlement recipients in Hong Kong, it would be a major cause of concern for Hong Kong to be granted greater democracy - the political competition to promise higher entitlement payments is already out of control and it would be of huge concern if continued fiscal mismanagement were to result in higher taxes. At the end of the day, Hong Kong has just two competitive advantages over our Asian rivals - cultural and political proximity to China and a competitively low tax regime. The former will erode over time as China continues to open up and the latter is the only thing that truely distinguishes us from places like Singapore (where the quality of life is unquestionably higher). In this context, its also worth bearing in mind that Hong Kong's tax base is also relatively narrow and there is an unknown but assuredly significant portion of the taxpayers who could easily redomicle themselves to places with cleaner air (something the HKSAR government has repeatedly demonstrated it has no interest in dealing with), cheaper and better properties and other lifestyle advantages.

As a final thought on Hong Kong's growing entitlement problem, it is fortunate the the HKD/USD peg forces the government to maintain sufficiently large reserves to deter speculative attacks (as were seen during the Asian crisis).

In short, the budget was the latest in a series of budgets that do no more than attempt to make the government popular at the expense of placing Hong Kong's future in a more vulnerable state. The only vision shown is that of a financial secretary looking forward to reading the headlines the day after.

Off topic: Canon's lack of customer support

I have been happily using an original Canon EOS 5D as my camera of choice for about six years now. Six years of trouble free digital photography. Until now. Until I purchased a new laptop which came with Windows 7 at which point I discovered that the driver for the EOS 5D is not supported by Windows 7 and Canon has no intention of producing one.

This basically means that the automatic selecting and transfer feature which I have long accepted as a basic feature of using a digital camera no longer works. It also means that the ability to use the remote shooting feature through the laptop is gone as well. In practice I now have to use a card reader to select and transfer pictures from the camera's memory card to the laptop. It still works but is less efficient or convenient. There appears to be nothing I can do about remote shooting. (There were some highly technical work arounds but they were beyond my technical comfort level and appear to be even less convenient than using the card reader.)

It is very disappointing that Canon has no interest in supporting a camera that still enjoys widespread use and which I still hope to get several more years of wear and tear out of.

I've been drooling over the EOS 1D X as either a replacement for or an addition to the 5D but am now having second thoughts. It's a lot of money to invest in something which I expect to use for far longer than Canon apparently is willing to support that usage.

Businesses under attack don't hire

Around the world businesses are under attack - increased taxes, more onerous regulations and the explicit or implicit risks of more to come. Obamacare, carbon taxes, higher consumption taxes, Dodd-Frank and its equivalents and so on are becoming a global epidemic.

Likewise the "rich" (insert definition of choice, but basically the western world's declining middle class as well as genuinely wealthy) are under attack from rising tax burdens, rising living costs (e.g. education and health care) and face widespread threats of more (the "rich" should pay more etc).

Regardless of the merits of individual proposals (and most are nothing more than a naked grab for revenue so governments unable to live within their means can make electoral bribes to people who, for the most part, take from rather than contribute to the cost of running the country), one of the consequences of the attacks on businesses and taxpayers is that they feel threatened. People who feel threatened don't spend - they go into survival mode:

• businesses (especially smaller businesses) don't invest in expansion and don't hire - they conserve their cash rather than risk it


• taxpayers (especially the middle class) faced with the prospect of rising taxes will cut back spending where possible (discretionary consumption spending and charity being the easy cut backs) - they pay down debt and build emergency funds


• investors divert money away from risk assets into safer investments - in particular government issued or backed securities which do much less for economic expansion than many other forms of investment

Simple message - if you want businesses to invest in themselves and create jobs, take away the threats. This is especially true for countries which do not enjoy a low cost labour advantage.

And yes, I had far too much to drink last night.

Even Karl Marx would be sniggering at this rubbish

Widespread ire at the scape goats for the developed world's financial mess is more than understandable - it's justified. (Of course it would help if all the scapegoats were vilified in the same way (politicians, unions, regulators, civil servants etc) but that's another issue...)

But this list of demands from the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is so silly it's actually quite funny.

Sure there's a lot wrong with the world and a lot that needs fixing but rubbish like this is, at best, a demonstration of the failings of an education system, the absence of a moral framework and an abrogation of personal responsibility for ones self. The only thing missing from the list is the author's right to have someone else cook and serve his meals for him.

Maybe I should come up with my own list.