John French Sloan, the Ashcan School and the Philadelphia Museum of Art exhibition "Modern Times: American Art 1910–1950"

John Sloan (American 1871 - 1951), Sixth Avenue and Thirtieth Street, 1907 (detail). Oil on canvas, 24 1/4 x 32 inches. Philadelphia Museum of Art: Gift of Meyer P. Potamkin and Vivian O. Potamkin, 2000. 1964-116-5. 

My knowledge of US art is still very limited. I had never heard of John Sloan, the Group of Eight or the Ashcan school until my eye was caught by a piece in Artdaily Philadelphia Museum of Art opens "Modern Times: American Art 1910-1950".

Wikipedia (link above) summarises Sloan in this way:

John French Sloan (August 2, 1871 – September 7, 1951) was a twentieth-century painter and etcher and one of the founders of the Ashcan school of American art. He was also a member of the group known as The Eight. He is best known for his urban genre scenes and ability to capture the essence of neighborhood life in New York City, often observed through his Chelsea studio window. Sloan has been called "the premier artist of the Ashcan School who painted the inexhaustible energy and life of New York City during the first decades of the twentieth century" and an "early twentieth-century realist painter who embraced the principles of Socialism and placed his artistic talents at the service of those beliefs."

The Ashcan School is described as:

The Ashcan School, also called the Ash Can School, was an artistic movement in the United States during the early 20th century that is best known for works portraying scenes of daily life in New York, often in the city's poorer neighborhoods. The most famous artists working in this style included Robert Henri (1865–1929), George Luks (1867–1933), William Glackens (1870–1938), John Sloan (1871–1951), and Everett Shinn (1876–1953), some of whom had met studying together under the renowned realist Thomas Anshutz at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, and others of whom met in the newspaper offices of Philadelphia where they worked as illustrators. The movement has been seen as emblematic of the spirit of political rebellion of the period.

The Artdaily describes the Philadelphia Museum of Art exhibition Modern Times: American Art 1910–1950 as exploring the creative responses of American artists to the rapid pace of change that occurred in that country during the early decades of the twentieth century. It "examines the new and dynamic visual language that emerged during this period and had a dramatic impact on painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, architecture, and the decorative arts. These developments" were shaped by the dizzying transformations then occurring in every aspect of life, from the advent of the automobile and moving pictures to the rapid growth of American cities and the wrenching economic change brought on by the advent of the Great Depression after a decade of unprecedented prosperity."

According to Timothy Rub, the Museum’s George D. Widener Director and Chief Executive Officer, "America’s embrace of modern life—its perils as well as its promise—in the early twentieth century was expressed most clearly in the arts. The work of this period still feels fresh and of the moment."

George Luks, Street Scene, 1905, Brooklyn Museum

I said earlier that my knowledge of American art was quite limited. That's actually true of my knowledge of American history and culture in general. I did study some American history,  have read various political works as well as fiction, have been exposed to multiple films and have been to the country three times.

While aspects of America are instantly familiar through exposure, it still strikes me as an alien culture, both simpler and far more complex than Australia. This is not a criticism, just a personal observation.

Back in the early 1980s when I was back at UNE as a postgrad student and on a general reading jag,  I read Stow Persons' book American minds; a history of ideas. This gave me a far better idea of both the simplicity and complexity of American life and thought than any other book that I have read because it was so wide ranging in its scope. The US is a much larger country than Australia in terms of population and resources. It is older and has a much bloodier history. In some ways it is multiple countries contained within borders reflecting settlement patterns and accident of history.

Yet when all this is said, there was something familiar in the art I looked at compared with Australia or indeed Europe at the same period.  I really would enjoy that exhibition.

Monday Forum - the administrative competence of the Trump Administration

I think that the thing that most surprised me about President Trump's Executive Order "PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES" was the apparent administrative incompetence involved, something that may be becoming a feature of the new US Administration at this point in its life.

Consider the Order first. I accept although I may not like the Administration's focus on being seen to deliver on campaign promises. Accept because they were campaign promises, dislike because I thought that some of them were very silly indeed. However, the way that the Order was drafted and then "implemented" was ham handed and confused. It seems that the need for immediate political atmospherics overrode common sense and practical administration.

From an administrative perspective, there were three problems with the Order: it was poorly drafted, containing ambiguities that meant that its scope was not properly recognised; partially as a consequence of this, there were potential legal uncertainties about its validity; and it was put in place without the necessary administrative underpinnings required for effective delivery. All this led to confusion, collateral damage to individuals and the US reputation and subsequent backtracking.

You can get a feel for the degree of confusion and backtracking if you compare the Order and its initial implementation with this formal statement on the scope of the Order issued by the UK Foreign Office following discussions between Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and the US Government. To my mind, this statement provides a gloss not supported by the original Order, initial US actions or statements from the President and his team.

Even then, there are ambiguities in the British statement best captured in this paragraph, one that appears to conflict directly with the earlier parts of the statement.  "The only dual nationals who might have extra checks are those coming from one of the seven countries themselves – for example a UK-Libya dual national coming from Libya to the US". Now compare this with the earlier parts of the statement:

The Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has today held conversations with the US Government and as a result we can clarify that:

• The Presidential executive order only applies to individuals travelling from one of the seven named countries.

• If you are travelling to the US from anywhere other than one of those countries (for instance, the UK) the executive order does not apply to you and you will experience no extra checks regardless of your nationality or your place of birth.

• If you are a UK national who happens to be travelling from one of those countries to the US, then the order does not apply to you – even if you were born in one of those countries.

• If you are a dual citizen of one of those countries travelling to the US from OUTSIDE those countries then the order does not apply to you.   

The first part of the UK statement appears in direct conflict with the Order, while the last paragraph would appear to be in conflict with the earlier paragraphs.I note, by the way, that while both the Canadian and UK Governments have responded on behalf of their residents to the US Order, the Australian Government appears to have been silent on the issue, preferring to focus instead on the deal with the US on refugee resettlement. I may be wrong here, but I checked both the PM's and Foreign Minister's websites.

I siad that administrative incompetence may be becoming a feature of the new US Administration. The terrorism/migration Order is not the only example. President Trump may be suffering from the delusion that signing an Order is equivalent to making something happen.

Consider, example, the Order calling for a 30 day review on the Best way of defeating ISIS. I have no especial problem with this.Indeed, quick, sharp, reviews on particular issues can be important in allowing a new Administration to refine its views and set new directions. However, the volume of Orders as well as some of the more contentious content does raise questions about the capacity of the Administration to even consider let alone implement consequent recommendations. We have seen from a number of recent Australian Governments what happens when the desire to do, to be seen as active, outruns the capacity of supporting systems to deliver.

In writing this post, I have chosen to focus on the question of administrative competence. Obviously, many other issues are involved. However, the question of policy and administrative competence is central to what actually happens.

I am treating this post as the Monday Forum post. As always, feel free to go in whatever direction you want.

Postscript

The polarising effects of Mr Trump's Order are remarkable, building on existing divisions. Most of the people I know including my own family have strong reactions against the Order, building on existing attitudes to President Trump.On the other side of the ledger, there has been an uptick in nationalistic anti-immigration feeds. Open your mouth to express contrary views to either side and you will get your head bitten off.

I was interested in the attitudes adopted by the Westminster democracies. Canada is on one side of the ledger, directly attacking the Order, even using it as a device to promote Canada's open door inclusive approach. Canada also seems to have acted very quickly to clarify elements of the order, including the position of dual nationals.

On the other side we have Australia. This press statement from yesterday (Monday 30 January) captures the Australian position, reflecting lock-ins from existing policies. :

JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister, will you be undertaking an assessment of the Trump Executive Order, particularly in regard to Australians who are dual nationals, going to the US for business or for tourism, or students? Is there a need for an assessment of how that policy may impact on Australians?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, as the Foreign Minister's spokesman said this morning, our Embassy is engaging with US officials on this subject but at this stage, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has not received any requests for consular assistance from Australians unable to board transport to the United States.
JOURNALIST:
Do you agree with the terms of that Executive Order? As it affects dual citizens?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, Michelle, as I said, we have not seen any cases of it so doing. If cases do arise, then we will take them up with the government. The Foreign Minister's spokesman has said that already.
Can I just say to you though, it is not my job, as Prime Minister of Australia, to run a commentary on the domestic policies of other countries.
We have, here, in Australia, border security arrangements which are the envy of the world. I know this from when I was at the UN in September. I can tell you, leader after leader spoke to me about how much they admired the security, the intelligence-based security systems we have on our border to keep Australians safe and to keep terrorists out of Australia.
We've got very strong systems. That is a fact. So we're proud of those and we'll maintain them, and where we can, we will enhance them. If others wish to emulate what we're doing, they're welcome to do so but I am not about to run a commentary on other countries’ practices.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Turnbull, other leaders, western leaders, have taken issue with the Executive Order. You don't find it discriminatory? Secondly, in your conversation with President Trump, did you mention the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
PRIME MINISTER:
Our rules, our laws, our values are very well known. Our commitment to multiculturalism, our commitment to a non-discriminatory immigration program is well known. I spoke about it at some length just last week on Australia Day. So that's where we stand. That's our policy. But our borders are secure. That is the bottom line. Our borders are secure. We are not complacent. Peter Dutton is constantly looking at how we can enhance our security. We recognise there are real threats and we are determined to keep Australians safe.

Both the UK and New Zealand came out in direct opposition to the Order, if with a degree of kicking and screaming on the UK side where the Government seems to have temporised initially.  The New Zealand position is far more nuanced, if this news reporting is any guide. I think New Zealand, like other countries was blindsided by the nature of the Order, leading to a lagged response. In responding, Mr English:

• States that while he does not see the Order as anti-Muslim, New Zealand is opposed to the ban. In stating this, Mr English is quite careful not to be drawn into commentary on US domestic politics 
•  Focuses on reassuring New Zealanders that the NZ Government will not apply the same approach, that New Zealand remains an open welcoming country
• States that New Zealand is seeking clarification, especially on the position of dual nationals. 

In a comment, Winton Bates wrote:

I suspect the new POTUS would perceive administrative confusion as a plus if it got more "liberals" on the streets protesting. Many of his supporters will assume that he must be doing the right thing if he upsets the "liberals".

Winton may well be right. There are fault lines, divisions, that I am seeking to understand. In this context, Winton also pointed me to this article from Time, Donald Trump, Stephen Bannon and the Coming Crisis in American National Life. As an historian, I do use history to inform my writing, but am very cautious about "grand theories", including those set out here. However, the piece is interesting in providing possible clues to some of the thought influences within the US Administration.

My focus in the post was on what the Order and other decisions of the Trump Administration might say about the administrative competence of the Trump Administration. That will be tested by time. For the moment, this is a short term Order, one designed to give the Trump Administration time to put new approaches in place, including "extreme vetting".

The ambiguities in the order as well as immediate problems in its enforcement have already forced a range of clarifications. It remain the case, however. that no one is really sure what it actually means when it comes to specific cases. The clarifications have clarified some things, added further confusions in other cases.
            

As I write, it appears that the Australian Government has secured the same deal that applies to Canadian and UK dual citizens, they can travel freely to the US. No doubt this will be extended to New Zealand. This is actually messy in itself. Where does it leave dual-nationals from Germany or Denmark or Sweden, for example?  No doubt this will be worked out, it may have been already for all I know. meantime, the chaos and conniptions roll on. 

Jack Ryan and Tom Clancy - interpreting Donald Trump

Holga the Dane is a sort of semi-mythological Arthurian style figure who will come to life to rescue the Danish people should they ever face annihilation. Explaining his failure to appear, our guide at Kronborg Castle suggested that it had not been necessary, that somehow the Danes had sort of muddled though.

I mention Holga now because some of the reporting and almost despairing commentary on Donald Trump carries a flavour that might not unfairly be described as where is Holga? We need him to rescue us from this man! There is very little analysis, rather sets of personal reactions driven by perceptions.

In What policies will be pursued by the author of "The Art of the Deal"?, Winton Bates sought to use Trump: The Art of the Deal, a 1987 book written by Trump and journalist Tony Schwartz, as an entry point. For my part, I have used that book (I read it a long time ago and liked it), the views I formed from watching The Apprentice plus reporting on Mr Trump.as a partial entry point. However, perhaps the most useful works of all have been Tom Clancy's books and especially the John Ryan series.

I am not equating Jack Ryan with Donald Trump. They are very different people. However, Clancy did capture accurately certain aspects of US right wing populist thinking (I am using that phrase in a descriptive not pejorative sense) including distrust of those within the Beltway and of career politicians, a belief in bureaucratic inefficiency, a belief in the people, a belief in US military power and a somewhat mercantilist view of trade.

Executive Orders is perhaps the clearest presentation because this sets out descriptions of Ryan's political actions and ethos having unexpectedly become President of the United States, including successful action (using Mr Trump's phrase) to clean out the swamp. In doing so, President Ryan has to deal with a media and political establishment that constantly tries to interpret his actions against existing models, paradigms, of thought and action.

I think that the last is important, for that's what people are trying to do, judge Mr Trump against existing models that don't quite fit. I think that we have to watch and wait to see what it really all means. I really don't know!

Postscript

I see that  Paul McGeough in the Canberra Times has picked up the Tom Clancy theme: "Americans are trapped in the pages of a Tom Clancy political thriller"

.We now have President Trumps inauguration speech. The print version follows. I think that we can use this as a base for objective analysis since this sets out the benchmark for the presidency.

 "Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: Thank you.

We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.

Together, we will determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come.
We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.

Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.

Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another - but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people.

For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.

Washington flourished - but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered - but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes - starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.

This is your day. This is your celebration.

And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.

January 20th, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.
The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now.

You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.

At the centre of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighbourhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.

These are the just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public.

But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of all knowledge; and the crime and the gangs and the drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealised potential.

This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

We are one nation - and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.

The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.

For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;

Subsidised the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;

We've defended other nations' borders while refusing to defend our own;

And spent trillions and trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.

We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon.

One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions and millions of American workers that were left behind.

The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.

But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.

We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

From this day forward, it's going to be only America First, America First.

Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

I will fight for you with every breath in my body - and I will never, ever let you down.

America will start winning again, winning like never before.

We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

We will get our people off of welfare and back to work - rebuilding our country with American hands and American labour.

We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and hire American.

We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world - but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example - we will shine - for everyone to follow.

We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones - and unite the civilised world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

The Bible tells us: "How good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity."

We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

There should be no fear - we are protected, and we will always be protected.

We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we will be protected by God.

Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.

In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.

We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action - constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.

The time for empty talk is over.

Now arrives the hour of action.

Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.

We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:

You will never be ignored again.

Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

Together, we will make America strong again.

We will make America wealthy again.

We will make America proud again.

We will make America safe again.

And, yes, together, we will make America great again.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America. Thank you. God bless America." ENDS

Edward S Curtis' photographs of the native North Americans

Edward S Curtis was a notable photographer of the native North Americans. This is a photograph of Kwakiutl canoes from British Columbia.

Mashable has put together a collection of his photos. Have a browse. They are quite spectacular.

Looking at the history of Curtis's life in Wikipedia (link above), he seems to have been a bit of a sad case. That may be wrong, of course. Certainly he doesn't seem to have been very business like in managing his affairs.

Still, with the financial support of J P Morgan, he left an unparalleled record of North American native Indian groups whose value survives to this day.

Budgets, debt ceilings and the need for a US shock

I have just been watching ABC America on the House of Representatives vote on the House budget bill.

Blowed if I know. I suspect that very few Australians (I don't) understand either the venom of the debate on Obamacare or a Governmental system that prevents you passing a national budget for two and half years. I know that this is a bit like welcoming the equivalent of an economic H bomb, but I kind of hope that the US Congress fails to avoid either a Government shut down or a lift in the debt ceiling. The US system is important globally on many levels, but I just don't think that it's working in political or policy terms.

From an outside viewpoint, the domestic agendas that so drive US politics occupy a bubble that has disconnected from events elsewhere or even from US core US concerns. Perhaps a cold shower will help. You really cannot have a functioning system that somehow relies on what appears to be three month rolling compromises. 

If, as I have begun to hope, both Republicans and Democrats dig in, if the US system starts to collapse, then perhaps the results might drive a lesson home to all sides on Capitol Hill. Really, I think that's the only way to restore sense to the US debate.          

Obama first year, health care and the financial markets

As we came to the end of President Obama's first year in office, I wondered how to mark his performance in my own mind. I think that I would go with the President's own assessment, a solid pass. It was never going to be possible for him to deliver on all the expectations surrounding his election to office.

I don't comment a lot on US developments because I have no special expertise beyond a reasonably deep general knowledge built up over the years. I am happy to leave commentary to Geoff Robinson or Thomas, although Thomas has been much quieter since his masterly analysis of the Presidential campaign itself.

One of the things that I did not and to a degree still do not understand was the venom aroused by the health care debate. A lot of the discussion is presented in ideological terms, yet there had to be more to it than that.

The following graphic shows the formal structure of the reforms. It all seems very reasonable, yet the devil appears to lie in the detail.

Back in July in Fortune, editor at large Shawn Tully in 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform set out the problems with the proposed legislation as he saw it. The central issue apart from cost lies in the way the proposed legislation changes existing relationships between doctors and patients, insurers and insured. That I can understand. It also helps explain, I think, some of Kanani's earlier posts written from the perspective of a Doctor's wife.

Now that I know this, I can put a lot of the dispute about the legislation aside. It's not just an ideological political firestorm, but one that links to substantive issues. They may be complicated issues to be sure - I am glad that Australia has a simpler system - but they are the type of issues I can understand.

Staying with the US for a moment, the announcement by President Obama of a tax on larger financial institutions to recover the costs of the financial rescue package made me blink. It was partly the populist language used, although here the President is playing to his domestic support base. To get a feel for what I mean about attitudes, have a browse of John Taplin's blog. But I also blinked because it imposed a tax that was likely to affect the global competitive position of US banks, if only at the margin.

To give full credit to the Australian Government and key officials in the Reserve Bank and Treasury, they have actually played a remarkably clever game in in a very complicated global environment. I am not talking here about the stimulus packages as such, but about the way that the support measures for Australian financial institutions not only protected them from the firestorm but actually enhanced the global competitive position of Australia's banking sector.

There were costs to be sure. One side-effect was a very large increase in the market dominance of the big banks. While this will erode with time as it has done before, customers do face reduced choice.

Now at the time that the US Administration for domestic reasons has proposed the new tax, Australia is considering taxation changes that will enhance the competitive position of the country in global financial markets.

According to Mark  Johnson, the architect of the plan to develop Australia into a regional financial hub, the export of financial services can double in the next five to seven years. At present, exports account for only 3 per cent of the sector's contribution to the economy compared with 50 per cent in Britain, 25 per cent in Singapore and 8 per cent in Canada and the US.

.. it was a reasonable ambition for financial service exports to increase their "value-add" to the economy from 3 per cent to 6 per cent, Mr Johnson told The Australian yesterday.

I have always been sceptical of plans to expand Australia's role in this way. After all, they have been around for at least twenty years without obvious effect. Australia is, by global standards, a small economy. Our global economic position has tended to shrink as other, bigger, countries have expanded. Yet it seems to me that the preconditions for an expanded international role for Australia's financial sector have slowly emerged almost willy nilly.

It's not just the country's relatively strong economic position, although there is something almost eery about the way in which current thinking and discussion about the economy proceeds independently of concerns elsewhere. It is as though the global financial crisis never occurred.

In looking at the pre-conditions for a broader Australian role, I want to mention briefly just four .

• The Australian financial system has come through the crisis largely unscathed. As one measure of this, financial institutions are once again recruiting staff.
• The Australian dollar is now one of the world's major traded currencies. This has good and bad aspects, but the currency is seen as secure in the sense that the country itself is sound.
• The Australian superannuation levy ( the proportion of salaries compulsorily deducted for superannuation) has created a large and growing volume of funds under management, now in excess of one trillion dollars. This appears to have been important in easing the liquidity strains flowing from the global financial crisis.
• Australia has sophisticated financial market sand well established infrastructure including highly skilled people.            

    Just how all this will play out in practice is unclear because of the number of variables involved. However, at the very least the pre-conditions for significant growth are there,