House prices
Wow, that was a brilliantly written essay from Chalmers.
Yeah, he's generally impressed me so far. Sharp as a tack and appears to be more than your typical one-dimensional political PR machine. Fingers crossed.
Excellant essay by Chalmers.
Just the sort of thing I want to hear from our Treasurer.
Question is did Chalmers actually write it or was it written by his PR team?
t'was a good essay...
rooftop wrote:Yeah, he's generally impressed me so far. Sharp as a tack and appears to be more than your typical one-dimensional political PR machine. Fingers crossed.
and yep, the non PR man is a refreshing change
I'm just happy I finally got my wish...
someone... anyone... anyone at all... from the labor party just dares utter the word 'neoliberalism'
he did it, and kinda dropped a convincing counter argument to boot
here's hoping
We'll see what he does with it.
Brilliantly written but can he turn words (very pretty words) into any kind of action.
I think it gives a good insight into the direction he and the Labor party want to take Australia, and I agree with a lot of it.
Would be nice to see Australia return to being a country whose wealth and prosperity is shared by all, instead of being pillaged by big business and the already wealthy, while locking everyone else out.
Yes surprised he used the word neoliberalism. People with backgrounds in economics tend to dismiss terms like capitalism, neoliberalism, etc. But neoliberalism has come to just mean an extreme form of market economy (capitalism) focused on minimal government and the market provision of pretty well everything, etc.
I wholeheartedly believe Chalmers is right that the problem is not the overall political-economic framework in which we live of a liberal democracy with a market economy. The problem is the particular variant or implementation of it. The US is one variant, UK is another, Switzerland another, the Nordic countries another, etc. The problem is Australia has been going down the path of the US neoliberal variant, and is now starting to experience all of the same problems that are upsettingly visible in the US, mostly related to extreme concentrations of wealth, extreme corporate power, people being left behind in disadvantage and poverty, polarisation/division across all of society, culture/gender/identity wars, etc. I think Chalmers recognises this and is putting forward his vision for a better path for Australia.
My main concern is visions like his and similar Labor party visions that Rudd and Swan previously wrote down in the same magazine tend to threaten established vested interests of big business and the already wealthy, who benefit from the current neoliberal system. So these visions are met with outright warfare from these established interests. I'd suggest this has been a big reason for the Labor party's troubles over the past couple decades post the Howard government.
Chalmers is on point there.
Thanks for posting that essay!
Thats a lot of words and not much of an action plan. By the way - Lithium is not clean energy.
No doubt old Jimbo can write.
But reforming capitalism to be anything but the rapacious race to the bottom it is at its core is folly.
monkeyboy wrote:Thats a lot of words and not much of an action plan. By the way - Lithium is not clean energy.
Go on monkeyboy. We know that means you want to edumacate us poor noobs. Please proceed.
I'm such a rabid anti-capitalist and have worked in policy and politics long enough to be incredibly sceptical of anyone who talks about putting values first - I've never experienced it to be anything other than meaningless, having little material impact on anything except the conscience of the decision makers and their supporters. I didn't find myself envisioning a different future for Australians while reading it, rather that some of the acronyms would be different, there'd be more diversity amongst the millionaires who leave people in poverty, and that neoliberalism could be wrapped up in a fuzzy jumper and appear to be less harmful - even if it's good to hear someone besides the Greens and Wilkie using the worse.
(I'm perhaps a bit burnt out and cynical at the moment if that isn't obvious haha)
I do think you're spot on GSCO that it would cause heated battle with the vested interests that might perceive they'll lose out in Chalmers values-based-capitalism (I don't think any of them actually will). If they take it to them though, the dumbest thing Labor could do is not genuinely take them on. Unfortunately, Labor doesn't have much more than a political PR machine. Their grassroots volunteers barely exist, the unions are decimated after 30 years of the Accords, and most activist groups are against Labor, not with them. I'd love to see Australia have a full blown class war to fundamentally change aspects of our society, but ideas of class are so twisted in Australia now that I don't think it's possible.
I’m with you Dandandan. After ‘jaded’ comes ‘disinterested’, which is where I’m at.
Would love a genuine bit of class warfare, but you can’t strike much these days, protests are illegal. Just where and how would this war be fought?
Capitalism would then look to make a buck out of the war. It’s a Hydra headed monster. Yes, Labor just doesn’t have it in them these days, and LNP are just bought and sold puppets of big corporates.
The hope that I see for Australia is that the greens and independents become the opposition to Labor, who are still to the right of Menzies Liberals. The greens and independents would be the new left party and Labor the right. LNP can wither on the vine, they have nothing to offer Australia any more.
Another wow chart plotting the S&P 500 against some measure of the amount of money sloshing around in the US economy, this time what's termed overall liquidity:
Overall liquidity combines the size of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet with the treasury general account (TGA) and the overnight reverse repo facility (RRP).
A response to the Chalmers essay.
“ I don’t recall ever having read so many words – almost 6000 – that contained so little. No clear proposition, no coherent framework for thinking about the world, no tangible plan of action.
Those on the left should be the most scornful of all. The treasurer’s big new idea of government pursuing partnerships with the private sector is just about the most neoliberal thing imaginable.”
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/treasurer-s-essay-is-an-incohere...
It is said the continued spending is one thing keeps the interest rates rising.
Tarric has found where the spending and savings glut is.
This is something I have been talking about for a while, now I have the data to back it up.
— Tarric Brooker aka Avid Commentator 🇦🇺 (@AvidCommentator) January 31, 2023
Boomers hold the vast (I mean vast) majority of household savings since the pandemic.
And in many cases there is no reason for them to slow their spending.
h/t @Scutty
Chart: UBS pic.twitter.com/8MyLXPKsfQ
batfink wrote:monkeyboy wrote:Thats a lot of words and not much of an action plan. By the way - Lithium is not clean energy.
Go on monkeyboy. We know that means you want to edumacate us poor noobs. Please proceed.
I think this neatly sums it up:
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/biden-sits-ev-hummer-pollutes-more-...
The environmental impact of EVs isn't just about the electricity generated to power each mile. The manufacturing process also causes the release of greenhouse gases at several stages, known as the embodied emissions of the vehicle. EVs in particular—with heavy battery packs—use minerals that need to be mined, processed, and turned into batteries.
The pursuit of greater driving range and larger vehicles require increasing battery size, also increasing embodied emissions. Mining the minerals used for batteries has a significant impact on the environment and can have negative social impacts, including the well-documented human rights abuses surrounding the mining of cobalt, an important mineral for many EV batteries. More-efficient EVs need less battery to have the same range, which means fewer emissions and fewer of the problems associated with mining the minerals.
There's also some very credible scientific websites that shoot down the whole EV is carbon free concept. No one likes to talk about this tuff though...not yet anyway.
Very good essay above. Even a Guernica reference.
One honest question for Mr Chalmers, if social inclusion is to be a theme of the economy to be designed in the future; how do you go from the sub-1% available rentals, 10%+ rental increases yoy and increasing homelessness among legacy Australians to a better and more equitable future, by increasing the population by 300,000 to 500,000 people per year?
That to me is the elephant in the room VJ.
It's genuinely frightening what's being proposed, and likely, implemented.
Just done another mission across Australia, Andy. It blows me away just how much land there is. Not good land, mind you; although that also does exist in places. Why have people not upped and gone and created their own society in all this space given that the reality within the current society is increasingly stacked against them, and it looks like they are being replaced?
@VJ Out of curiosity who are you talking about? Which people?
@monkeyboy, yes a lot of that is true but in most cases, you have to make a move and fix the deficiencies over time. Hardly any projects would see the light of day if perfect moments/resources/circumstances were to be waited for.
@flollo young Australians. To define further, grown up here, have Aussie accent, race not important. Looks like they are being diluted in their labour market, and sheer price of housing delays family formation, and leads to lessened birth rates. As we are seeing. Hence replacement.
As they are young and healthy, going and doing a 'Mayflower' somewhere is more of an option than it is, say, for me.
If you are talking inland VJ- jobs, water, infrastructure, schools etc etc.
Yeah, in my travels there used to be remote bits of Tas that had water, fertile soil and even empty town sites gazetted and divided into blocks...
I see what you're saying. There are some great regional towns providing great lifestyles. Wagga comes to mind. My wife used to study at Charles Sturt Uni and had to do all her practicals in Wagga so we spent a fair bit of time there. I always stop when I drive from Sydney to Adelaide (a drive I did many times). I love that place, it has everything you need (other than the ocean). Cool cafes and restaurants, beautiful riverfront, and even a nice lake with barbecues with kids' playgrounds. And there is definitely no lack of infrastructure in the area, there's an airport, a new hospital, and heaps of housing options...
Overall, there are many cool towns in the whole of the Riverina region across NSW, VIC, and SA. True, some are very small, maybe a retirement option while some provide a fair bit (Mildura being another one).
As for young people going there. I don't know enough to judge the situation. But I can notice a lack of knowledge about these regional options. People's thinking falls into the typical dichotomy - it's either the city or the bush. Truth is, there's a lot of gray in between. Smaller country towns obviously don't have all the attractions that coastal towns or bigger cities have. But on the other hand, it's not a complete 'starting new towns from scratch in the Tasmanian bush' experience. There is quality infrastructure and good opportunities in some places. It's not for everyone but it's perfectly fine for some. But many people don't even know about it. I know a lot of people from Sydney who don't know anything about Adelaide or even Melbourne. How would they know anything about smaller towns? One of my mates always complains about Sydney housing but he never went anywhere else to check it out. Ironically, he works remotely these days and even if he would go to the office he could do it in Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane (probably even more options).
But I also know a few people who bought houses in Sydney through a few steps; for example, buying an investment property in Brisbane, selling it after a few years, buying something else, and selling it... Some of these regional towns are a good option for something like this as well.
"Australia is on track for net migration of more than 300,000 people this year, more than 25% higher than Treasury forecasts, due to a surge in arrivals, according to a former top immigration official.
Abul Rizvi, the former deputy secretary of the immigration department, said that Treasury forecasts of a 235,000-person annual boost to population from migration – the long term pre-pandemic average – have “significantly underestimated” net figures."
An annual population increase of 235k (roughly the size of Hobart) will see us with a population of about 40 million by 2060.
Meanwhile, Jim Chalmers, signalled the government could adopt a proposal from the Business Council of Australia for permanent migration to be set as a percentage of the total population.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/13/australia-on-trac...
Capitalism with values?
This is the takeaway line for me from the SMH criticism:
"I suspect the real reason the treasurer is so keen to champion “impact investing” is the same reason he was so keen to pursue off-budget spending before the election. You get to say all the right things, and have the appearance of solving big problems, while avoiding the budgetary and political costs involved in making a difference."
I feel like this is what we will see for the next few years with Labor, including in housing policy. They'll beat their chests about poverty, but not raise welfare. They'll talk about affordable housing, but do nothing to reduce house prices. They'll think of themselves as big reformers, but the structure of society will remain the same. Genuine socialist reformers of the Latin American variety, desperate to overturn neoliberalism and reduce inequality, would come in and raise citizens out of poverty immediately (something Scomo himself did, albeit temporarily), would start building public housing to address homelessness, etc. I feel like we will see lots of "we're listening" propaganda from Labor, but little material change.
Chalmers economics:
Make the big Australia even biggerer
Clear land & Build them more houses
Repeat.
SMH article nailed it. Just another liblab vacuous vessel.
bonza wrote:Chalmers economics:
Make the big Australia even biggerer
Clear land & Build them more houses
Repeat.SMH article nailed it. Just another liblab vacuous vessel.
I'm sorry to say but this is all Australia knows:
- clear more land
- put more cows on it
- export the food we grow
- import food
- pour more concrete
- dig more holes
- extract more raw materials and send offshore for processing...buy them back to build more houses
- more houses, more houses, smaller blocks, smaller blocks
Because thats what the people want.
Very cynical this morning.
Anyone who thinks EVs don't have an impact on the environment is naive or dreaming. Equally important, those who suspect EVs are worse for the environment will naturally gravitate to anything that confirms this hypothesis. There's lots of scientifically rigorous info out there that the total lifecycle impact from raw materials extraction through to operational footprints for a new BEV vs. a new ICE vehicle places BEVs well ahead of ICE vehicles in terms of which is least bad for the environment (and yes, that even includes when charging a BEV with a grid source heavily dependent on coal and gas).
As for those commodities that'll go up in value (my family has been mining multiple generations), yes gold (because it's use as a store of value wasn't invented recently), but also copper, nickel, phosphate, cobalt, zinc, manganese, construction sand, water, wheat and corn.
Regarding the topic at hand (RE), over the medium-long term there are structural reasons as to why there's a floor under RE values. A few have covered them here but in a nutshell it's our desirability (some of which influence each other): a destination for migrants, rule of law, relative personal and social freedoms, business investment, strong economy, world class education system, and small area of land that's considered the most desirable (coastal strip - sorry Mt Isa/Roma/Karratha, etc., if it wasn't for the mining nobody would really want to live there). Not to mention our economy is so heavily geared (literally and figuratively speaking) to RE that any party that holds power would do whatever it takes to prevent the music from stopping/the house of cards collapsing (choose your metaphor). And I do mean any party, LNP/ALP/Greens/ONP/ULP you name it; because once in power every sane person would look at the socio-economic damage caused by letting things turn to shit (I'm talking literal deaths by suicide and domestic violence on a mass scale), decades of economic suffering, turning into an economic shadow of ourselves, aggressive takeover of our banks and other market economy institutions by foreign entities all leading to a diminished military capability. yes, that is the cascade effect). If you disagree you really have no idea of what you're talking about. Convincing you probably requires the equivalent of doing a bachelor's degree. I realise how dismissive and arrogant that sounds. My only hope is that my comments at trigger at least a few here to take off their ideological blinders and zoom out, take a holistic, systems view and read a lot wider and then adopt more of a risk management approach and utilise questions such as "so what?" and "if this then what?". It's not until one looks at the entire system, from micro to the macro, structurally and temporally but also in terms of profiling each of the system's participants and the incentives within it, as it (the system) actually is (not what we wish it to be), can one even begin to develop and propose potential solutions to any problematic results of the system as it is (and of course each proposed solution needs to then be tested within the larger system model to check what the initial and any cascading outcomes might be and whether these are favourable (and to whom) and why. etc. etc. etc.
As for those having a go at capitalism, I think I've said this around here before, capitalism is agnostic. Your attacks and disdain for capitalism are misguided. It is flaws in governance structures and processes that are the cause of so much social and environmental pain and economic perversion. Capitalism, like other economic models, in a nutshell is just a particular set of incentives that guide resource allocation (from the individual to the product producing entity right up to States) and the flow of productivity's benefits. Different modes just turn the dials up on these incentives to different extents. Capitalism is still the best set of parameters for getting the most favourable social, economic and environmental outcomes for the greatest number of people. Wealth inequality, environmental degradation, etc., these are not failures of capitalism itself, but rather failures of governance - i.e., how our society is run and in this case specifically how capitalism is put into practice). Perverse incentives around housing? That's a governance flaw. A market that ensures benefits ($) flow to those that can reduce costs the most including via environmental degradation? That's a regulatory (governance) flaw (i.e., doesn't account for negative externalities). Conversely, governments are often best place to invest in leading edge R&D that improves the world and then providing that to commercial markets to scale and make available. A great example is the CSIRO and developing food crops that have higher yields and require lower materials inputs. That's a governance decision that works for the greater good.
Regarding RE again.... the Australia Institute hit the nail on the head. This current period of inflation is being largely driven by supply constraints. But also, and really frustrating that this has gotten so little coverage in the media (including Aunty), big businesses have been shown to be price gouging and using supply chain/input costs as a smokescreen. In some cases it is responsible for nearly a 1/3 of prices rises seen since 2021. This is not illegal behaviour but needs to be called out, highlighted and shown for what it is. And from what I've seen the RBA really only looks (permits because that is all its official remit allows for) at and responds to topline lag indicators and not underlying drivers and lead indicators. And as others have pointed out, rate increases are really only going to curb the behaviour of a relatively small subset of market participants and there are those (as pointed out by Tarric) that it'll have almost no effect on. Though what's missing in that analysis (re. Boomers/the wealthy) is that after a certain point of wealth their spending on things doesn't increase in a linear way (it tends to kind of level off) and instead they switch to spending (i.e., investing) in wealth creating assets.
What the RBA has largely avoided putting too much emphasis on (and the MSM) is that the RBA basically wants to get as close as possibly to causing a recession, without actually crossing that particular Rubicon. Put another way, they want to root everything without actually cumming. Orrrr they want to turtle without actually shitting the bed.
And VJ, going back to my original idea, no, prospective property buyers don't need to receive cash. The whole point of the idea is to reduce the barrier to entry so they don't actually need a cash handout. As you rightly point out giving out cash just fuels inflation. Hence why the banks and the mortgagees (in my idea) are also not receiving cash handouts. Just debt relief. Of course, even if this idea were implemented, for all the fundamental/structural reasons I listed at the very top of this long post, the period where the barrier to entry will be reduced may only last a few years.
A very well written and articulated article.
https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2023/02/02/rba-reserve-bank-revamp-ko...
velocityjohnno wrote:It is said the continued spending is one thing keeps the interest rates rising.
Tarric has found where the spending and savings glut is.https://twitter.com/AvidCommentator/status/1620360491850936320
Fair to say also that Boomers would be the major demographic that own their own house along with possibly multiple investment properties (own outright or at least positively geared). Of which interest rate rises are least likely to impact them!!!
dandandan wrote:This is the takeaway line for me from the SMH criticism:
"I suspect the real reason the treasurer is so keen to champion “impact investing” is the same reason he was so keen to pursue off-budget spending before the election. You get to say all the right things, and have the appearance of solving big problems, while avoiding the budgetary and political costs involved in making a difference."
I feel like this is what we will see for the next few years with Labor, including in housing policy. They'll beat their chests about poverty, but not raise welfare. They'll talk about affordable housing, but do nothing to reduce house prices. They'll think of themselves as big reformers, but the structure of society will remain the same. Genuine socialist reformers of the Latin American variety, desperate to overturn neoliberalism and reduce inequality, would come in and raise citizens out of poverty immediately (something Scomo himself did, albeit temporarily), would start building public housing to address homelessness, etc. I feel like we will see lots of "we're listening" propaganda from Labor, but little material change.
Here's a thought. Take the family home into a means test and if you have assets over $1m owned outright then you get taxed higher. That tax goes straight into assisting the homeless. Just like the fuel excise goes into building new road infrastructure.
Just to add to my long diatribe.
All trends remaining consistent, inflation will continue to fall in the short to medium term in Australia. The lead indicators are all pointing to this. Energy costs trending down, fertiliser prices trending down (for now), shipping and transportation costs are down massively from late 2021. With the layoffs in other economies and return to pre-pandemic transnational migratory patterns we're likely to continue to see a lack of upward pressure on wages for a lot of people. Though many aren't aware of it but we're in the early stages of a second mining boom (for the 21st century) in Australia; by the time everyone's hearing about it in MSM the economic impacts will already be felt (hello, two-speed economy). A partially overlapping but follow-up second boom will come from massive investments in infrastructure projects to do with transport and energy and to some extent ports; this'll be caused by a need to catch up a lack of investment in the last two decades, meeting clean economy targets, and in SEQ the 2032 Olympics.
My bet is the RBA will increase rates another 0.25% this month more so as a signal rather than there being any justification based on the lead and lag indicator numbers. That is, it's a shot across the bow to say we're not fucking about and will keep going if we don't see these lag indicators fall quickly. Then they'll hold for a few months/till the end of FY23 to see what the lay of the land is.
Of course, all of this could be thrown in to disarray if a conflict in Eastern Europe turns into a proper regional conflagration and the Chinese economy returns to 2014-2019 levels of activity (though I doubt it based on cultural practices).
Donweather, agreed on the concept though not sure about the $1m figure. That's a lot of average wage people currently in Western Sydney being captured by that level.
Regarding land taxes being part of the solution, not sure who asked about farmers but they wouldn't count. It's comes down to land use zoning. So the taxes would apply most strongly to low density and even medium density residential and tourism zones. Those are the most desirable areas to live and where we need to see the greatest amount of development (densification) if we want to arrest the kind of sprawl and lack of availability we're all up in arms about. Placing it on just those existing zone types creates a disincentive for people to continue to turn productive agricultural land (e.g., see the LGA in SEQ called Redlands) or even bushland (again, see the same LGA for a great example) into low density residential estates. Indeed, doing this really well could involve creating positive tax incentives for restoring land to it's original ecological value.
However this also requires genuine overhaul of land use planning regs so that we don't just chuck apartments everywhere without a concurrent improvement in the quality and number of public infrastructure networks, cycling networks and open spaces (parks) and recreatational facilities (pools, sports, PCYCs, etc.) and even arts and education prccincts. There a lots of examples of this around the world and the best I've ever seen is Vienna, Austria.
If you think people aren't committing suicide and there's not a DV epidemic as we speak Mowgli, I'm not sure what world you are living in.
As for capitalism as an economic system being agnostic, that's not something many people who think about this stuff seriously would agree with. All economic systems are ideologically driven, that is what holds them together. Capitalism is as ideologically charged as socialism, communism, or anything else.
You got some good stuff in there @mowgli, I like it.
Mowgli, think you missed Don's 'owned outright' part re 1 million in assets.
whoops! I did too. My bad. Then yeah I agree more strongly.
dandandan - Feel free to pull up a quote of my post where I said suicide and DV aren't problems right now. I literally work with charities in both of those spaces. I'd say I'll wait but I'll be here until the sun collapses in on itself and goes supernova...
Also, while your searching, please also remember to pull up a quote where I said it's not ideological. Per the definition of ideology, of course it's a set of beliefs. A set of beliefs about the best set of incentives for the allocation of resources, productivity and the flow of benefits. Communism as a concept is also a set of beliefs about the best set of incentives for etc. etc....
You appear to have missed my point entirely so I'll simplify it. Of all the economic models (fine, call it an ideology if you insist), based on it's core premise capitalism is still the best of them and the issues many rightly identify as being wrong with the world are not the result of capitalism (as evidenced by seeing the same problems of inequality and eco-degradation in contexts using different models/ideologies as well), but rather with how its put into practice. And that's governance... Someone here already mentioned the differences in economies and democratic approaches between Aust., US, UK, NZ, Nordic countries.... those are all examples in differences in governance with regard to capitalism and democracy. They're all capitalist economies (yes, even the Nordic ones). But capitalism is approached and applied differently in each. That's governance in action baby.
Ironically, the first thing that came to mind with this $1m tax thing is that I would buy more leveraged assets to decrease the liability. So it could be a double-edged sword and turbocharge negative gearing. I'm not sure, I would need to break this idea down into details and spend more time on it to come to a conclusion.
Ah yes true Flollo, always there for exploitation eh.
Fed just did another 0.25% and all ears were on Mr Powell as he did his conference and said "we will stay the course", then after a half hour of consistently themed questions from the press gallery (theme: 'but, really, you are stopping, right?') it seemed he caved a bit and market ripped higher. I feel for him.
Just out of interest, monetary policy of the world is centrally planned. That ain't capitalism. We hang on the pronouncements of central planners; this is the reality.
velocityjohnno wrote:Fed just did another 0.25% and all ears were on Mr Powell as he did his conference and said "we will stay the course", then after a half hour of consistently themed questions from the press gallery (theme: 'but, really, you are stopping, right?') it seemed he caved a bit and market ripped higher. I feel for him.
Just out of interest, monetary policy of the world is centrally planned. That ain't capitalism. We hang on the pronouncements of central planners; this is the reality.
What he said: https://wolfstreet.com/2023/02/01/what-powell-actually-said/
What the market (or the algos parsed the headlines for) was "disinflation", "pause" . And then Lizzie Warren piled in yesterday cos her portfolio was getting whacked no doubt.
Poor Powell - damned if you do, damned if you dont.
Live footage of Jpow: pic.twitter.com/aIUXqkfiYy
— Will DeCotiis (@Will_DeCotiis) February 1, 2023
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
mowgli wrote:Donweather, agreed on the concept though not sure about the $1m figure. That's a lot of average wage people currently in Western Sydney being captured by that level.
Don't hold me to the $1m, I just picked a number. Surely the majority of people in western sydney don't own outright home/s greater than $1m now?
nah I didn't read it carefully enough re. owned outright bit. Yeah there can't be that many out there.
Now would be the time to increase the supply of housing in a big way. Higher rates making it harder to lever up (for investors) and greater supply = suppression of prices.
But who are we all kidding... wages wages wages is the elephant in the room and no big 'N' or small 'n' (neoliberal) supports wages increases relative to inflation.
House prices - going to go up , down or sideways ?
Opinions and anecdotal stories if you could.
Cheers