Category: Australia

Looking at the wrong curve

Times have changed, have we?

“We don’t understand it, there’s a property shortage but prices are going down,” bleats the property expert in a recent interview.

Property booms are always excused with claims of “shortages”. The US, Ireland and the UK in recent years property markets all collapsed despite business and political leaders claiming there was a “property shortage”.

The shortage meme happens because the property spruikers, economists and finance writers focus on the wrong curve – they look at the supply curve and assume prices are going up because there isn’t enough property to go around.

What drives speculative booms is easy credit – demand driven by access to money drives speculation, not supply shortages.

Australia’s long term property boom which started in the late 1960s and went onto steroids in the late 1990s has been driven by access to credit. Banks were prepared to lend to property buyers, who were increasingly speculators, and government policies favoured those speculating on property over investing or building businesses.

The crisis of 2008 was the end of the easy credit era and the Australian property speculation boom is over. For the policy makers, politicians and economists the basis of the 1980s corporatist ideology is crumbling around them.

No ideologue lets go of their beliefs easily – that’s why Western governments who bought into the corporatist worldview are pumping trillions of dollars into supporting zombie banks and releasing constant stimulus packages to prop up the property market.

Like the communists of the 1970s, today’s corporatists are looking at choosing the statistics that suit their ideological views.

To support their beliefs they look at the wrong curve and then wonder why the world isn’t working as they thought it would.

Times have changed. Have you?

Could Australia follow the Greek path?

Is Australia really different from Greece?

Business Spectator’s Robert Gottliebsen today describes how Australia has caught the Greek disease of low productivity and an overvalued currency.

This is interesting as just last week Robert was bleating on behalf of Australia’s middle class welfare state.

Australia’s productivity has stagnated over the last 15 years, but unlike Greece the ten years before that was a period of massive reform to both employment practices and government spending.

The structure of the Australian economy is very different, not least in its openness, to that of Greece.

What’s more Australia has a floating currency which will eventually correct itself unlike the Euro that Greece finds itself trapped in.

That’s not to say Australians won’t be hurt when that currency correction happens. The failure of the nation’s political, business and media elites in failing to recognise and plan for this is an indictment on all of them – including Robert Gottliebsen.

Australia’s real similarity with Greece is the entitlement culture that both nations have developed.

Over those last 15 years of poor productivity growth, Australia has seen a massive explosion of middle class welfare under the Howard Liberal government which has been institutionalised by the subsequent Rudd and Gillard Labor governments.

Today middle class Australians believe they have a right to generous government benefits subsidising their superannuation, school fees and self funded retirements.

For all the sneering of Australian triumphalists about Greek hairdressers getting lavish government benefits, Australia isn’t far behind Greece in believing these entitlements are a birthright.

A middle class entitlement culture is the real similarity between Australia and Greece. It’s unsustainable in every country that harbours these illusions.

Unlike Greece, Australia doesn’t have sugar daddies in Brussels, Paris and Berlin desperate to prop up the illusion of the European Union. Australia is own its own when the consequences of magic pudding economics become apparent.

Australia’s day of reckoning may arrive much quicker than that of Greece. Then we’ll see the test of how Australians and their politicians are different from our Greek friends.

Television rights and clouds

The challenge technology brings to information hoarders.

The Australian Federal Court today handed down their appeal decision in the latest twist in the Optus TV Now copyright case where the National Rugby League claimed the telco’s online recording service breaches the sporting body’s copyright.

Reversing their colleagues earlier decision, the judges found the TV Now service does breach the League’s copyright.

The Court’s reasoning is because the service plays a part in creating a recording the copies cannot be considered an individual’s personal copy to be watched at a later time – therefore they aren’t protected under the personal use provisions of the Copyright Act.

It’s going to be interesting to see where the line is drawn that a computer program or cloud service is infringing copyright.

Could be that copying a video of a football game to Dropbox, Google Drive or Evernote is a copyright breach by those services?

Perhaps online back up services like Carbonite or iCloud could infringe copyright as they automate the copying process?

Even if Optus doesn’t appeal the case to the Australian High Court, the decision will almost eventually tested there by someone else.

Many of the spokespeople – along with and their apologists in the sports and business media – have argued this is about the law falling behind technology.

The court covered this in paragraphs 18 to 25 of the judgement linked above and the judges are quite clear the law was written to be technology neutral.

Calls now to “reform” copyright law in light of the TV Now and AFACT – iiNet cases to “bring the law up to technology” are disingenuous.

While there’s no doubt legislation could be tweaked, there’s the real threat any “reforms” driven by the pleading of the copyright industries and their tame journalist friends will result in more restrictions and damage the take up of modern technologies.

One can’t blame the rights holders for trying to maximise their income, they have to feed the remorseless hungry beast that is modern professional sport – although one wishes they didn’t keep bleating “think of the children” to justify their actions.

We’ve previously seen how sports organisations have felt threatened by every new technology and the profits these new tools have delivered them.

The latest wave of change is no different, although the glory days of sports rights may be another symptom of a changing economy and 1980s thinking.

Hopefully the sports organisations and rights holders won’t be allowed to kill the potential of the these technologies before new business models are allowed to evolve.

Cargo cults and your business

Do you think the government, China or big business is going to save you?

“We need an interest rate cut” thunders the business media.

“Give us GST relief” plea the big retailers.

“China will boom forever” assert the government economists.

“Big corporations will buy us out for a billion dollars” pray the hot new start ups.

“I’ll win the lottery this week” thinks the overworked cleaner.

We’re all waiting for the big saviour that’s going to rescue us, our business or the economy.

It could be a big win, a big client or a big government spending program to rescue us.

Sadly, should we lucky enough for that saviour to arrive, it may not turn out to be all we expected.

There’s many lottery winners who curse their win while many disaffected founders who watch their startup baby fade away neglectful new owners.

For a lumbering department store, tax changes will do little to save them from market changes their managements are incapable of comprehending.

Interest rate cuts are great for business when customers are prepared to take on more debt but in a period where consumers are deleveraging a rates cut will do little to stimulate demand.

The clamour for interest rate cuts are a classic case of 1980s thinking; what worked in 1982, 1992 or 2002 isn’t going to work the same way in 2012.

What’s more, the Zero Interest Rate Policies – ZIRP – of the United States and Japan are a vain attempt to recapitalise zombie banks saddled with overvalued assets rather than an effort to help the wider economy.

China is more complex and there’s no doubt the country and its people are becoming wealthier and there are great opportunities.

The worry is most of what we read today could have been the wishful thinking written about Japan thirty years ago. Lazily selling commodities to the Chinese while they create the real value is not a path to long term prosperity.

In business we have a choice, we can pray for luck or we can make our own luck.

Some choose to join the cargo cult and pray, or demand, that someone else does something. Others get out and do it.

John Frum gravesite image by Tim Ross through Wikimedia Commons

ANZAC Day

Remembering the the real bravery on a day of remembrance.

It’s ANZAC Day in Australia where the anniversary of the World War One landings in Gallipoli marks the first national action of the then new nation.

At its heart, ANZAC Day remembers sacrifice and bravery. The men and women who volunteered for the Great War and all those that have followed over the last hundred years were prepared to sacrifice relationships, safe careers and their lives to protect the King or Country from the threats of the Kaiser, Hitler, Japan, Communism or Terrorism.

We should remember though that those politicians saying fine words today and posing for photo opportunities at the landing beaches are the much the same people who started an unnecessary war in 1914 and many of those wars since.

Compare the words of Billy Hughes supporting Australian conscription in 1915 and the words of John Howard or Julia Gillard.

Stripped of spin doctors’ dressing and the words of today’s politicians are the same.  Only the empire has changed.

Today’s politicians know of concepts like sacrifice, patriotism and bravery, exploiting them can prove handy at election time.

Luckily for most of them their political and business careers rarely call for such qualities.

Hopefully our children won’t find themselves in the trenches  – or fall out shelters – to meet the short term gains of an Obama, Cameron or Gillard and their corporate friends.

The real lesson of ANZAC Day, Veterans Day and all the other national days of remembrance around the world for those every nation has lost in battle is that war is the final act and represents a failure by the Kings, Presidents and Prime Ministers who choose to lead us.

They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

Lest We Forget

Tracking the end of the consumer society

One statistic illustrates how economies are changing

I’m currently researching a presentation about the retail industry.

One of the things that leaps out when researching consumer behaviour is the savings rate.

For twenty-five years from the early 1980s to mid 2000s, the savings rate collapsed in Western economies; below are the US and Australian rates.

The US Personal savings rate shows the rise of consumerism
US Savings rates 1950 to 2020 – St Louis Federal Reserve
How did the Australian savings rate fall during the consumer boom
Australian Savings Rates 1980 to 2012 – Reserve Bank of Australia

 

The graphs show the same thing; households spent their savings over the 25 years which drove the consumer economy. It’s no accident that period was a good time to be a retailer.

Being on a deadline, I don’t have time to analyse these number further right now, but one thing is clear; most of the consumer boom from the Reagan Years onwards – or the equivalent from Maggie Thatcher or Paul Keating – was driven by households reducing their savings.

That couldn’t last and didn’t. Businesses and governments that are basing their decisions on what worked through the 1980s and 90s are going to struggle in the next decade.

Looking at these figures raises another suspicion – that graphs showing non-real estate investment by businesses and government would show similar declines over the 1980-2005 period.

It might be that golden period of what appeared to economic success was just us living off society’s collective savings.

What if Bill Gates had been born in Australia?

Can a society that puts property speculation before innovation succeed in the 21st Century?

Microsoft founder Bill Gates is today one of the world’s biggest philanthropists having built his business from an obscure traffic management software company to what was at one stage the world’s biggest technology corporation.

But what if he’d been born in Sutherland, New South Wales rather than Seattle, Washington? How different would things have been for an Australian Bill Gates?

The first thing is he would have been encouraged to study law; just like his dad. In the 1970s lawyers had far more status and career prospects than software developers in Australia.

Causing more concern for his parents and career counselor would have been his determination to run his own business. It’s far safer to get a safe job, buy a house then start buying investment properties to fund your retirement.

The Funding Drought

If Bill still persisted with his ideas, he’d have hit a funding problem. No bank wouldn’t be interested in lending and his other alternatives would restricted.

In the Australia of the 1970s and 80s they’d be few alternatives for a business like Micro Soft. Even today, getting funding from angel groups and venture capital funds depend upon luck and connections rather than viable business ideas.

Bill Gates’ big break came when IBM knocked on his door to solve their problem of finding a personal computer operating system; the likelihood of any Australian company seeking help from a small operator – let alone one run by a a couple of twenty somethings – is so unlikely even today it’s difficult to comprehend that happening.

Eventually an antipodean Bill Gates would have probably admitted defeat, wound up his business and gone to work for dad’s law firm.

Invest in property, young man

Over time a smart, hard working young lawyer like Bill would have done well and today he’d be the partner of a big law firm with a dozen investment properties – although some of the coastal holiday properties wouldn’t be going well.

While some things have changed in the last thirty years – funding is a little easier to find in the current angel and venture capital mania – most Australians couldn’t think about following in Bill Gates’ path.

Part of the reason is conservatism but a much more important reason are our taxation and social security systems.

Favoring property speculators over entrepreneurs

Under our government policies an inventor, innovator or entrepreneur is penalised for taking risks. The ATO starts with the assumption all small or new businesses are tax dodges while ASIC is a thinly disguised small business tax agency and assets tests punish anyone with the temerity to consider building an business rather than buying investment properties.

At the same time a wage earner is allowed to offset losses made in property or shares against their income taxes, something that those building the businesses or inventing the tools of the future are expressly forbidden from doing.

Coupled with exemptions on taxing the capital gains on homes, Australian households – and society – is vastly over invested in property.

Making matters worse, the ramping up of property prices over the last thirty years has allowed generations of Australians to believe that property is risk free and doubles in value every decade.

That perception is reinforced by banks reluctant to lend to anyone who doesn’t have real estate equity to secure their loans.

So we have a society that favours property speculation over invention and innovation.

Every year in the run up to Federal budget time tax reform becomes an issue, the real effects of negative gearing and other subsidies for housing speculation – the distortion of our economy and societies investment attitudes – are never discussed.

In Australia there are thousands of smart young kids today who could be the Bill Gates’ of the 21st Century.

The question is do we want to encourage them to lead their generation or steer them towards a safe job and an investment property just like grandpa?

Should Australia pass a jobs act?

Can legal reform help Australian start ups?

Last week the US President signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act into law.

The US law seeks to make funding easier for new businesses by lifting the burden of regulations like the Sarbannes Oxley Act (SOX) and various other financial rules.

One of the main planks of the reforms is it changes shareholder thresholds, for instance allowing 2,000 investors rather than 500 maximum before it has to go public, and allows companies to advertise their shares subject to certain restrictions.

Whether it achieves the stated aim of allowing new innovative businesses to raise funds or triggers a new generation of “boiler rooms” and investor fraud remains to be seen but it begs the question of should Australia pass a jobs act.

The funding crisis

There is no doubt Australia has a business funding crisis. Before the global financial crisis of 2008, it was difficult for smaller business to access finance.

In the aftermath of the GFC, it became even harder for businesses to raise funds as banks withdrew from the small business sector, increased their lending rates and tightened criteria.

While this situation has eased somewhat, partly due to the entrance of new angel and VC investment funds, financing of startup and small business is patchy and still tough.

An Australian Jobs Act would make it easier for business to raise funds and well crafted one might encourage both self managed and public superannuation funds to allocate some of their investments into the startup and innovation sectors.

A Scammer’s dream?

One of the big criticisms is that it reduces investor protections; while it restricts investors with less than $100,000 in annual income from punting more than 5% of their income, it’s quite clear in a full blown mania the Jobs Act will enable plenty of shoeshine boys and self funded retirees will do their life savings.

The question of course is how well the existing regulations protect investors or the community given the financial disastersof 2008.

Despite tough rules like SOX and the Basel Agreements, massive institutionalised fraud occurred and it’s surprising there have been no reforms in these rules given the huge and unprecedented costs of rectifying the problems.

In an Australian context, it’s clear local regulations aren’t working when thousands of investors are defrauded by their financial advisors in financial planner led scams like Westpoint. So reform is due.

While it’s clear the legislation isn’t working, it’s also clear the Australian financial planning industry doesn’t have the skills or ethics to advise clients should a local Jobs Act be passed.

Perhaps we should be accepting there is risk in investing and an Australian Jobs Act could help by simplifying business rules and improving transparency in accounts rather than bogging business and investors down in masses of unread paperwork.

Is the US experience valid?

Looking at the US Jobs Act it appears the Silicon Valley insiders are finding ways to extend their business models, whether this is successful creating new American jobs or just enriching the good folk of Sand Hill Road will pan out in the next few years.

For Australia it’s important we reform our laws to make business and innovation easier though we need to be careful we don’t ape the worst aspects of the Silicon Valley business model.

Playing with Dragons

We should be careful how we treat our customers.

Chinese manufacturing has been in the news recently with various exposes of factory conditions by the New York Times, the now discredited Mike Daisey and a fascinating look at US store chain Wal-Mart’s supply chain by Mother Jones’ Andy Kroll.

In his examination of Wal-Mart’s Chinese suppliers Andy Kroll interviews factory owners and managers with a common theme, they are all loath to be identified for fear of incurring Wal-Mart’s wrath.

This is wall of silence is familiar in Australia; the reluctance of local suppliers to speak about the conduct of the Coles’ and Woolworths’ policies has hobbled enquiries into the domestic retail market.

Another aspect Chinese and Australian have in common is how the retailers drive down costs with big buyers insist upon regular price reductions from their suppliers.

This is what happens when your business is a price taker that relies on one or two suppliers; you accept what you’re offered or lose a large chunk of your business.

With many of Australia’s industry sectors now dominated by one or two incumbents, this way of doing business is now the norm rather than the exception.

As a nation Australia’s finding itself in that position as well. Now our governments and business leaders have decided Australia will only dig stuff up with a few favoured, uncompetitive industries like car manufacturing being being protected, the entire country is in a position not dissimilar to a Foshan coat hanger manufacturer.

Having that dependency on one or two major customers is a risk and when the commodities boom turns to bust – commodities booms always do – our relationships with these customers will be tested.

When that test comes, the clumsy way the Federal government has banned Chinese companies from tendering to the National Broadband Network or blocked investment in mining projects may turn out to be mistakes.

This is the problem with being a price taker selling a commodity product, you become hostage to fortune and when the market turns against you there isn’t a great deal you can do.

In the early 2000s computer manufacturers like Dell and HP decided to sell commodity products then watched with despair as Apple captured the premium, high margin end of the market. Neither business has truly recovered.

Being trapped at the commodity end of a market is not a comfortable place to be, particularly if you don’t have a plan to move up the value chain.

If your business is currently selling low margin, commodity goods then it’s worthwhile considering what Plan B is should the market turn against you. You might also remember to be nice to your customers

At least you’ll show you have more forethought than our leaders in Canberra who seem to like to play with dragons without thinking through the consequences.

David Jones’ wasted decade

Poor decisions by unaccountable management are killing industry icons

In 2001 Australian retailer David Jones shut down their website.

Back then, the future was clear; profits were in financial services and certainly not in online sales or investing in improved stores and service.

Today the company released their strategic review that looks forward to financial years 2013 and beyond. You can downloaded it from David Jones’ investor website.

On Page 13, they show just how far David Jones has fallen behind their international competitors. Less that 1% of DJ’s sales are online compared to 4.5% of the UK’s House Of Fraser and 13% of John Lewis.

Australian executives claim they are in a global market for their talents which is why they deserve world standard remuneration. David Jones’ results show how hollow that mantra is.

The problems start with the board, five of the eight current David Jones directors were with the company when that decision was made in 2001.

None of them have been held to account.

David Jones illustrates the weakness in Australia’s business sector – largely unaccountable boards answering only to institutional investors who themselves have grown fat and lazy on clipping the compulsory superannuation ticket.

One hopes the some of the competitors who are displacing flaccid incumbents like David Jones are based in Australia or the locals may soon find that many of these sectors, not just in retail, will go offshore to better run companies.

Milking the dead cow

How Sensis killed itself and the lessons for Australian business

Many big Australian businesses seem untouchable as they dominate their markets to degree almost unknown in most other developed countries. As the story of Sensis shows, Australia’s big duopolies may not be as strong as they appear.

The last few months have been tough for Sensis; revenues last year fell nearly 25%, the once strong business was folded into the latest incarnation of Telstra Digital Media and now the CEO Bruce Akhurst has departed after seven years.

What could have been a dynamic business is now shriveling away, what went wrong?

Milking the revenue cow

Bruce did a good job of keeping revenue coming in during a period that the then owners, the Federal government, wanted to maximise the book value of Telstra before its sale.

Year upon year Sensis could be relied upon to squeeze more money out of the businesses advertising in it.

Management were focused on extracting revenue from the existing client base rather than responding to the obvious threat from online search.

Expensive distractions

When senior management decided to respond to the online world, they were sucked into unnecessary and expensive distractions; the most notable being the 2005 launch of Sensis Search where the then Telstra CEO – the disastrous Sol Trujillo – famously sneered “Google Schmoogle”.

Three years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, Sensis admitted defeat. By then the small business advertisers who were the life blood of the directory market had woken up to the reality their customers weren’t using the Yellow Pages anymore. Sensis had missed the boat.

Clunky processes

Whenever I spoke to small businesses about Sensis through the 2000s there was the same complaint, “I don’t have time to deal with their sales people, just let me tick a box on a web page or send a fax!”

Purchasing space was difficult for customers, their 1950s Willy Loman sales model should have been automated in the 1990s and never was.

Instead Sensis was locked into a high cost sales model and added friction for advertisers which they shouldn’t need, not only were they expensive but they actually made it difficult for their customers to place orders.

Should Sensis have been sold?

At its peak in 2005, Sensis was valued at between 8 and 10 billion dollars as a stand alone company.

Many, including myself, believe that breaking Sensis away would have been the best result given Telstra were at the time focused on protecting their fixed line copper wire monopoly and the directories business was not getting the management attention or capital investment it needed.

History shows though that we might be wrong.

Commander Communications was spun off from Telstra in 2000 and like Sensis had inherited an almost monopoly position in the small business communications market.

By 2007 Commander was out of business thanks to a combination of incompetence, management greed and an inability to recognise the changing communications marketplace.

The Australian disease

Commander’s biggest problem was it saw its customers as cash cows, just as Sensis did. This exposes a much deeper problem in Australian industry and management culture.

Over the last thirty years Australian government policies have seen duopolies develop in almost every key sector of the economy.

All of these duopolies share the same “customer as a milk cow” philosophy which, along with the rampaging Australian dollar, has dragged Australia into being a high cost economy.

The banking industry, while not a duopoly for the moment, is an even more debilitating example of the cash cow syndrome where small business has been crippled by excessive interest rates and fees – particularly since the 2008 crisis.

Sensis’ demise is systemic of a culture that fixates on extracting maximum revenue from customers; concepts like innovation, R&D or adapting to market trends don’t have a role in this mentality.

Milking cows is a fine business, but sometimes you have to think about the health of the herd.

Building a digital economy

How does a state build new industries?

Yesterday the NSW Government hosted the Sydney leg of their Digital Economy Industry Action Plan forum meetings.

The aim of the action plan, one of a series for targeted industries, is to develop “a vision and strategy for the Digital Economy over the next decade in NSW.”

So how do we build a “digital economy industry” in a country that seems to be hell bent on staking everything on China’s continuing demand for coal and iron ore?

Picking winners

One of the things implicit in forums and plans like this is that the government has identified the ‘digital economy’ as a priority for economic development.

To help identify the opportunities the New South Wales plan breaks the sector into various industries;

  • Digital content and applications
  • Information services and analytics
  • Smart networks and intelligent technologies
  • Autonomous systems
  • E-research
  • ICT service innovation
  • ICT biomedical innovation
  • ICT safety and security innovation
  • Locally developed technologies and applications

The underlying assumption is the state has some sort of natural advantage in these areas or the potential to develop into a leader.

If these are the foundations of a region’s digital industries then we have to understand how they were identified as it’s difficult to build an industry if we don’t know what we can do.

The role of government

An important question is the role of government, an unfortunate thing with bureaucrats and politicians is they sometimes over estimate the influence they have on industry and the economy in general.

In NSW the state government’s role is going to be at best marginal, they can establish policies and offer financial incentives but business needs access to essential skills, finance and infrastructure.

Walking the talk

It’s all very well for governments to proclaim they support local businesses but if they prefer to buy from multinationals – even if the big boys are more expensive and have a less than stellar delivery record – then the domestic industry cannot thrive.

To be fair to governments, this reluctance to buy from local suppliers is shared by Australian corporations and on its own is probably one of the biggest obstacles for innovative companies and entrepreneurs to thrive in Australia.

Until this attitude changes among governments and corporations, it’s  difficult to see how local businesses can develop and survive.

Open data

For the digital industries, open data is probably the most important aspects. Unfortunately the current generation of Australian public servants, managers and politicians share an almost Stalinist view about access to taxpayer owned information.

Without making public data accessible so entrepreneurs can develop new applications and existing industries can improve productivity, governments are only giving lip service to building a digital economy.

A good example of this is the expressed desire of successive state and Federal governments to build Sydney as a global financial centre.

To do this, free and open investment information is essential yet company and stock exchange data that is assumed to be public information in the United States and much of Europe or Asia is propitiatory and locked away behind paywalls.

Government and corporate obsessions with controlling information makes it unlikely any Australian state or city can be global centre in the digital economy or the banking sector which the NSW government sees as an other priority sector.

Consistent standards

Another area governments can improve is by having open standards across government agencies so, for instance, land information can be properly matched with health data or public transport details.

Right now policies on data and things like social media or content platforms is fragmented making the cost of government and doing business more expensive and convoluted than it should be.

Promote advantages

One of the weaknesses in Australia’s overseas marketing is the nation is portrayed as a bunch of alcohol swilling beach bums cuddling koalas.

Google Maps founder Lars Rasmussen once said Google’s head office reaction when he suggested establishing a development office in Sydney was “what are you doing to do? Sit on Bondi Beach and drink Fosters?”

A missed opportunity in Australia’s disjointed tourism and investment campaigns is ignoring the nation’s diverse ethnic and skills base. We need more emphasis on the multilingual skills of the state’s workers and less on bikini babes.

Capital Problems

Whenever a group like the forums gather, there’s always complaints about Australian business’ access to capital.

Australia’s taxation, finance and social security system favours speculation on the share and property markets rather than long term investments or taking risks on new business ideas.

Three generations of these policies have a created a population who, understandably, see owning property as the safest way to provide for retirement. The banking system has responded to this and is reluctant to lend for anything not secured by real estate assets.

At the same time we’ve allowed the compulsory superannuation system to be dominated by flaccid ticket clippers who are content to charge working Australians outrageous fees for hugging the stock indexes.

Sadly what should have been a source of capital for innovative businesses largely spends its time lobbying governments for more protection and a bigger cut of workers’ incomes.

The access to capital is a serious problem for Australian business and one that can’t be kicked up the road for ever by Liberal or Labor Federal governments but it isn’t something the states can fix.

Not only do the distorted investment priorities of Australian society damage developing industries, it almost certainly guarantees the dream of making Sydney a global financial centre unattainable.

Education

One of the canards that always pops up at industry development forums is that educators aren’t in touch with employers’ needs.

There’s a certain type of business manager or owner who believes the roles of schools, technical colleges and universities is a sausage machine popping out perfectly formed young workers who can pick up a spanner, hair clippers or a copy of Photoshop and start productive work straight after being shown where the tea room is.

Those business owners are deluded.

None of that’s to say educators shouldn’t be adapting to their times as well as being open and transparent but the idea that the role of schools is to equip kids with the skills we need today would see them unprepared for next decade’s economy.

Equally however, Australia’s universities and training colleges have been encouraged to offer third rate courses to overseas students attracted by the prospect of getting permanent residence in the country. That bums on seats model had hurt the quality of the nation’s education sector and the skill levels of graduates.

Attitudes

The most essential part of building any nation’s industry is the attitude of people – if the prevailing view is it’s too hard, or threatens established interests then it won’t happen.

Probably the best advantage New South Wales, and all of Australia have, is a comparatively young, diverse and outward looking population.

The best thing the government can do in trying to build new sectors, be they in the digital economy or anywhere else, is to fix what they can such as procurement, open data or taxation and get out of the way.

A constant dreams of governments is to build the next Silicon Valley, just as it once was to build the next Detroit or Birmingham.

The era of the big engineering works passed, at least in the Western world, and the age of venture capital driven social media platforms will probably be over soon as well.

Aping someone else’s success – while ignoring the historical factors and accidents that created it  – seems a guaranteed way to disappointment.

The best part to build a digital economy, or any thriving society, is to encourage the risk takers and the inventors. Bring them together, let them loose and you build the next economic powerhouse.