This is Why Australia Hasn't Had a Recession in Over 25 Years (bloomberg.com) 115
Australia is close to seizing the global crown for the longest streak of economic growth thanks to a mixture of policy guile and outrageous fortune. From a report: While growth is being underpinned by population gains and resource exports to China, failure to spur productivity has meant stagnant living standards and electoral discontent; a property bubble fueled by record-low interest rates has driven household debt to levels that threaten financial stability; and a timid government facing political gridlock could lose the nation's prized AAA rating as early as May because of spiraling budget deficits. Australia's last recession -- defined locally as two straight quarters of contraction -- occurred in 1991 and was a devastating conclusion to eight years of reform designed to create an open, flexible and competitive economy. But it also proved cathartic, paving the way for a low-inflation, productivity-driven expansion. As momentum started waning, China's re-emergence as a pre-eminent global economic power sent demand for Australian resources skyrocketing, helping shield the nation from the worst of the global financial crisis. But the post-crisis return of the boom proved ephemeral, failing to boost government coffers and pushing the local currency higher, eroding competitiveness and driving another nail into the coffin of a fading manufacturing sector.
Disjunction between headline and text (Score:4, Informative)
There's rather a disjunction between the rah-horray headline and the text, which seems to be about how Australian economy is heading for a major bust. "Failure to spur productivity has meant stagnant living standards and electoral discontent; a property bubble fueled by record-low interest rates has driven household debt to levels that threaten financial stability; and a timid government facing political gridlock could lose the nation’s prized AAA rating as early as May because of spiraling budget deficits."
The answer to the question posed in the title seems to be "because Australia is close to China, so when the rest of the world economy hit a depression, the Australian economy was buoyed up by the Chinese money."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The answer to the question posed in the title seems to be "because Australia is close to China, so when the rest of the world economy hit a depression, the Australian economy was buoyed up by the Chinese money."
Sadly that is the truth combined with Australia didn't have the bank problems of the rest of the world as we had regulations that prevented them from being leveraged to the hilt. Unfortunately even though we were not in any real danger in the GFC the then Labour government decided to use it as a vote buying/popularity exercise and sent the country from surplus into massive debt and overspend, and ever since neither Labour nor liberal governments have been able to rein in the overspending. The housing bubble
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO Canada is more dependent on energy resources than Australia. We can grow more of our own food and we don't have to import food to survive. Our climate allows food production all year round, and our tropical areas are very productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is easily self sufficient in food, we just have to not export quite as much, though without imports, not as much variety. Our greenhouses do allow food production all year round for fresh veggies in the winter.
Re: (Score:3)
With or without artificial energy input?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you call artificial. Some are heated by methane from cow manure and some are heated by wood waste. Most winters there aren't many nights when they need heat here on the wet coast. Without the green houses we can still fall back on the Brassica crops as well as things like apples that keep. Note also that where I am, California is considered local as it's closer then the further parts of the province.
I'd imagine that much of your food production depends on artificial sources of water.
Re: (Score:1)
Canada uses mostly hydroelectric and a significant amount of nuclear locally (and has local uranium), along with a scattering of renewables. Fossil fuels were about 22% of Canada's energy sources. Despite Canada having very large oil reserves, hence Canada's export economy being driven by oil prices. Citation: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/... [nrcan.gc.ca]
I'm less familiar with Australia's energy mix, but this site suggests it's surprisingly dependent on fossils: https://industry.gov.au/Office... [industry.gov.au]
I'm also not famili
Canadians, Alaskans and M4GW (Score:2)
I don't subscribe that the historical CO2 levels have been reported, correlated and projected accurately (e.g. Antarctic levels, cores are lower than arctic levels but not noted) nor do I buy the proposed CO2 accumulation levels, due to actual kinetic measurements of CO2 lifetime. This independent of the CO2 itself causes catastrophic warming discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds like they f*cked you more, made you the goose.
bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Complete right wing rubbish, the reason we got thru the GFC without recession was the governments prompt stimulus actions at the time.
The housing bubble is not due to supply, there are many vacant investor properties, it is the ridiculous negative gearing tax dodge that is fuelling the housing price problems.
Quick questions (Score:3, Interesting)
LOL.
The only reason anyone made it through the GFC was because Obama (which inherited the mess) fired up the money presses and kept liquidity in the economy. If not for that it could have been decades long, the only thing that fixed the great depression in the 30s ultimately was WW2.. because ta-da the government starts spending up by building lots of stuff, thus putting liquidity into the economy.
Australia is not special, its just been riding an almost never ending mining boom with China.
Quick question for you.
1) The US pretty-much doubled federal spending in order to get us out of the depression, putting us now $20 trillion in debt.
2) Depressions seem to come roughly every 8 or 9 years. Call it every 10 years.
3) When the next depression hits, will the US have had enough time to pay back the extra debt?
4) Are steps 1-3, a sustainable plan for shortening recessions going forward?
Extra credit:
According to your post, the US helped *everyone* through the depression. Was the extra debt borne by
Re:Quick questions (Score:4, Insightful)
Most countries went into debt to deal with the US triggered recession, only America was/is in a position to fire up the printing presses to print trillions of dollars without massive inflation, and also to borrow even more trillions. America could easily pay back its debt and/or spend on infrastructure if they didn't stupidly cut taxes regularly. And why should other countries pay for Americas stupidity in deregulating their banks? My countries banks were regulated well enough that they didn't cause the banking crisis and according to the above posts, same with Australia's.
It's up to America to fix their problem of not being able to manage their money/economy. The trick is to save when things are going good instead of slacking off, but the rest of the world notices that you've once again elected the money/economy miss managers whose plan to pay off the debt is to increase military spending along with infrastructure spending and cut taxes.
Re: (Score:1)
Remind us why again America should pour huge resources into defending the free world, your western lifestyles and capitalist economies ? The US tax payer funds this largely to the rest of the worlds benefit.
YOURE WELCOME!
Re: (Score:3)
Would it have been better to simply let the banks fail, so that the depression was worse but much shorter?
The banks failed due to writing mortgages which they knew were bad. But the banks also knew that they would repo those properties when the mortgages failed. Then they got bailed out, and then "repaid" the bailout with money which we gave them to spend on other things [huffingtonpost.com], and meanwhile, they got to keep those properties. The banks won't sell the homes for what they are worth (what the market will bear) so they're just sitting on them hoping for a recovery that isn't going to come while people are throwing their
Re:Quick questions (Score:4, Insightful)
The banks failed due to writing mortgages which they knew were bad.
They did not "know" the mortgages were bad. Only the shorties knew that. If the banks had "known" the mortgages were bad, they wouldn't have needed a bailout. The banks (along with everyone else) "knew" that the mortgages would be fine as long as property prices continued to climb ... and everyone "knew" that the housing market never went down.
The bankers were not as smart as you think they were.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think its more accurate to state that they looked the other way for short term profits
If they "knew" the mortgages were bad, they could have made WAY more money buying CDSes and shorting the housing market. Some people got filthy rich doing exactly that, but other than Goldman, they were not "bankers".
Re: (Score:1)
Just giving out a lot of cash to random poor people, not been paid back could be supported.
The US government thought it was a great way to ensure poor people could buy homes. The reason why banks never offered loans to such poor people is because they never pay back the loans.
Australia did like to ask if a person could pay a loan back
Re: (Score:2)
Yes US banks had to offer home loans in all parts of the USA that they operated in. So a lot of home loans got offered to poor people who could never pay back the loans.
They had to offer loans. But they deliberately misrated loan risk so that they could offer loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back.
Re:Quick questions (Score:5, Informative)
Most of what you wrote is complete and utter bullshit. The majority of the bad loans weren't even written by banks, they were written by loan companies which were under no obligations to provide loans to anyone for any reason. You blame the government, but the banks would have done it anyway in the quest for profits. Sub-prime loans were extremely profitable, and as long as the housing market continued to rise, they were almost risk free because whoever owned the loan could foreclose on the house which would be worth more than the loan on it. The shady side of the subprime loan industry was the belief that even if they offered loans to people who likely couldn't pay, the lender could take their money until they couldn't pay any more and then steal the house for resale (and a quick profit) when they failed to make payments.
The government didn't have to force them to do anything, they hung themselves with short-sighted greed.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
According to your post, the US helped *everyone* through the depression. Was the extra debt borne by everyone, or only the US? Will foreign citizens help us pay back the money we spent to help them through, or only US citizens?
The US was the primary beneficiary of the causing factors of the crash, other countries were largely caught in the fallout. And yes, other countries have been also been stuck with doing a lot of stimulus.
Was the extra money spent on things that would make our economy stronger, such as infrastructure, high-speed internet access, health care, or research? Or was it spent to expand the military (as in: number of aircraft carriers)?
Wasn't a lot of it given to the bankers who caused the problems as zero cost loans.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have forgotten why Rudd & Co were able to take the actions they did - there was a BIG pile of cash reserves, put there by the previous govt as they enjoyed the profits and royalties of selling our coal & iron ore overseas. Unfortunately Rudd & Swan couldn't manage a chook raffle without going into debt.
Anyway, you're right about negative gearing - the sooner it's given the chop, the better. All those "wealth creation" schemes based on buying investment properties using interest-only
Re: (Score:2)
The stagnation is a temporary thing, mainly due to the government taking no significant action to avert it, preferring to just do their get rich quick buddies favours for favours at election time. Right now Japan is also stagnating, so a smart move would be for both countries to work together to stimulate each others economies ie big step, open borders (well, not that big, neither Japanese nor Australians are big on emigration), which would open up access to both countries to each others consumers, a really
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have forgotten why Rudd & Co were able to take the actions they did - there was a BIG pile of cash reserves, put there by the previous govt as they enjoyed the profits and royalties of selling our public infrastructure.
FTFY. That big pile of cash reserves is the reason why your gas and electricity bills have skyrocketed.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen the debt now, under the hopeless LNP, far higher than under Rudd/Swann? Of does reality hot suit your narrative?
It was by starving pensioners and unemployed that Howard/Costello built their surplus, on the back of reforms introduced under Labor, and the resources boom.
Had the Howard govt not given away buckets of money tomthe well off in middle class welfare, instead of creating a national wealth fund as Norway did, no debt would have been needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the debt is excessive, no doubt about that, and will likely get worse before it gets better. The income from selling resources is nowhere near what it was in the "boom". BTW, how much debt did the LNP inherit from Labor? You can't fix multi-billion-dollar national debts in one election cycle.
The narrative is a familiar one. Labor gets into power, and proceeds to spend, spend, spend (hint: you may or may not remember what happened in the 1970s under Whitlam). If the money isn't in the bank, Labor will b
Re: (Score:2)
The housing bubble is not due to supply, there are many vacant investor properties, it is the ridiculous negative gearing tax dodge that is fuelling the housing price problems.
Good to see you're gobbling up the political speak hook line and sinker.
Firstly there are no vacant investor properties. There are undesirable ones mostly fuelled by mum and dad investors who heard about this housing investment thing and then bought / renovated a house without any thought as to who would live there or how much they would pay and now can't get the money they want for it.
If you're in a city and you have a vacant property you're doing it wrong and you should pick a different career.
Secondly le
Re: (Score:2)
Well, arent you totally uniformed, there are vast amounts of unoccupied negative geared properties. Meanwhile, young people cant afford to buy their own residence, so they end up renting forever from negatively geared investors, manynof whom own multiple properties, who get capital gains.
I know its difficult for someone well off enough to afford an investment property to understand, but you are simply ignoring reality.
I absolutely stand by the words I used, and your beakdown is lttlie more than dishonest at
Re: Disjunction between headline and text (Score:2)
If there's an urban land shortage, what's stopping Australia from building a new freeway a kilometer or two inland along the entire east coast from Carins to Sydney, opening up tens of thousands of square kilometers of land for new development in the process?
Re: Disjunction between headline and text (Score:2)
The short answer is water.
The longer answer is crappy public transport and a general unwillingness for people to commute.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is water a problem between Cairns and Sydney, where the average annual rainfall is around a meter [wordpress.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is a very partisan point of view and totally ignores the effect the government stimulus had at the time. It could be argued that the stimulus could have been targeted better, but the focus at the time was on the dissemination of the stimulus as quickly and broadly through the community as possible. The actions of the government of the day during the GFC were widely regarded globally as an example of an economy that had successfully navigated the GFC.
Comments on property are also naive and ignore the di
Re: (Score:2)
We survived the GFC better than most, true, and most schools got major infastructure upgrades (there's good and bad sides to that, but it's another story), but at the end of the surplus, the labor govt didn't stop spending, so we ended up with massive foreign debt again.
There's a surplus of apartments because developers can't get their hands on land for traditional quarter-acre blocks for housing, and that's because local and state governments won't co-operate to release the land. Councils *are* allowing ol
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The actions of the government of the day during the GFC were widely regarded globally as an example of an economy that had successfully navigated the GFC.
Point of order, I'm not sure who you think was doing the wide regarding... but as a normal Canadian who reads a lot, Australia is never mentioned in the context of the financial crisis. The only articles I've ever seen talked about coal exports to China and a couple about that batshit crazy rich lady. Oh, and occasionally someone being eaten by a shark or alligator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Too high of a value of your currency can kill exports. That's why Obama did three rounds of quantitative easement in order to reduce the value of the US dollar. That helped the poor since it reduced the value of the rich people's cash.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it this way, would you hold bitcoins if it dropped in value everyday?
You're thinking like an investor in a currency. That's the wrong way to go about it on a macro-economic scale. A better question would be: would you do business in bitcoins for a fixed price if it dropped in value everyday?
That is what erodes competitiveness. It still costs me $x to do {insert local job}, but why would anyone pay me $x if suddenly they can pay €y which is magically less than $x was yesterday. Paying $x adds to the local economy, paying the now less €y does not.
We used to have pric
I purchased a house just before the 1991 recession (Score:5, Insightful)
It was our first house, and my partner was a lot more risk adverse than me. She insisted we be prepared for one of us being out of work and interest rates doubling. Both happened. I changed careers to IT and it took me nearly 2 years to get work, while interest rates went from 9% to 18% in a matter of months.
We managed to pay the mortgage and keep the house, but it was not a fun time.
Re: (Score:2)
Also bought a house in 1990, that was a painful time. Can't imagine losing a job as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In those days, banks didn't throw money at you like they do now and fixed rate loans were hard to get when you were in our 20s.
Chinese buying the property, selling all resources (Score:5, Interesting)
I've posted this maybe dozens of times across the internet, I'm tired of shouting it and I'm tired of making lengthy posts with links and evidence.
The country is selling all it's gas, minerals at rock bottom prices to anyone and everyone for a start. In a huge massive way. The mining boom is finally slowing down significantly, at least so I hear.
We are also pretty lax with stopping people buying property. There's arguments why shouldn't we stop them, but seriously, I'm sick of debating it. If you can't see how someone vastly wealthier than the common local, bidding for houses isn't going to mess up the cost for the locals,..... well I don't know what to say. There's a reason Thailand, Indonesia, other smaller second class countries don't let foreigners buy.
We're getting 'Vancouvered'. It ain't about race, it's about economics and the locals (who don't own yet, you know, a LOT of people) are getting destroyed, totally by this.
That's the facts, it's as simple as that. Furthermore, as long as the Chinese can still buy property (and they do it legally and illegally) then I suspect the 'crash' which I've hoped for, for a decade, simply won't come. They'll just see a cheaper place to store their money they want to hide from China.
We're boned. Best benefit to all this would be a property developer in the last 20 years. Rest of us? Well I've held off using expletives but to say I'm white hot raging angry would be an understatement. @$#%^ our governments.
Re: (Score:3)
The country is selling all it's gas
You're not wrong. What a wonderful example of a free-market economy. A small localised gas supply at relatively cheap prices made using gas for everything affordable. Even cars were converted to run on LPG to save costs.
Fastforward to now. Shale gas has boomed. Australia sold it's own grandmother to gas companies for a penny and we became a huge exporter of gas able to rival Russia and the middle east. Everything happy right? Except Australiasian gas prices fell to below the break even cost of the shale gas
Re: (Score:1)
I've posted this maybe dozens of times across the internet, I'm tired of shouting it and I'm tired of making lengthy posts with links and evidence.
The country is selling all it's gas, minerals at rock bottom prices to anyone and everyone for a start. In a huge massive way. The mining boom is finally slowing down significantly, at least so I hear.
We are also pretty lax with stopping people buying property. There's arguments why shouldn't we stop them, but seriously, I'm sick of debating it. If you can't see how someone vastly wealthier than the common local, bidding for houses isn't going to mess up the cost for the locals,..... well I don't know what to say. There's a reason Thailand, Indonesia, other smaller second class countries don't let foreigners buy.
We're getting 'Vancouvered'. It ain't about race, it's about economics and the locals (who don't own yet, you know, a LOT of people) are getting destroyed, totally by this.
That's the facts, it's as simple as that. Furthermore, as long as the Chinese can still buy property (and they do it legally and illegally) then I suspect the 'crash' which I've hoped for, for a decade, simply won't come. They'll just see a cheaper place to store their money they want to hide from China.
We're boned. Best benefit to all this would be a property developer in the last 20 years. Rest of us? Well I've held off using expletives but to say I'm white hot raging angry would be an understatement. @$#%^ our governments.
Oh please, spare us your xenophobia. I have heard such sentiments in the late 80's and 90's when the Japanese were on a spending spree. Everyone were concerned by the Japanese buying up American assets while conveniently ignoring that citizens and business entities of the UK owned more assets in America than the Japanese. I wonder why people were concerned about the Japanese and not the English. On second thought, I know why. Those other counties, you mentioned, preventing Chinese from buying property are
Re: (Score:1)
No. The Chinese alone are not responsible for exorbitant Australian property prices. They are just one of many factors. Larger factors include generous tax concessions (negative gearing and capital gains discounts) and the role of property investors (mostly mum's and dad's) buying their second (or more) property. Possibly the biggest factor is that everyone want's to buy in the inner-city areas of Melbourne and Sydney due to poor infrastructure and jobs growth outside these areas. House prices in other Aust
Re: (Score:2)
Bear in mind the subject of this Slashdot article, it's not so much about the prices only, it's about the lack of a recession.
Rising property prices with no external influx of money wouldn't shield us from a recession, selling all our resources and allowing huge amounts of foreign investment however would grow or at least reduce stagnation of the economy.
Totally agree about negative gearing, it's disgusting, no other word for it. None the less the foreign investment thing is huge.
Also general overall massiv
Re: Chinese buying the property, selling all resou (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, that makes sense, if you didn't buy a house in the 90s "fuck you" response. Very typical and unsurprising whatsoever.
Also, not all of the Chinese investors come here, where did I claim that? Quite a few buy here and don't come, the unoccupied house is simply, effectively used as a "physical bank" to keep cash out of China.
http://boingboing.net/2017/03/... [boingboing.net]
You people are never ending. "Fuck the losers who don't have a house", who cares if they are only 18 or 23 or 25 or even 35. Nope fuck em "should
Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh please, spare us your xenophobia.
If I said the population of Africa is mostly black is that xenophobia? No? Then why is pointing out the simple fact that there is an incredibly large institutional investment from Chinese non-residents of Australia in the country?
I mean every major skyrise construction is bought out mostly by Chinese non-residents. Whole suburbs in major cities have been bought and build by Chinese non-residents. The two largest cattle companies in Australia have been bought out by Chinese consortium. The largest property in Australia (the size of Israel) was bought by a Chinese consortium. And let's not forget the all their investment in our dairy industry, coal industry, telecoms, ... they'd own it all if it weren't for the fact that the government keeps coming up with new laws limiting foreign ownership (and good-on-em as well).
I wonder why people were concerned about the Japanese and not the English.
You may wonder, but you don't know despite what you claim. There's a big difference between having foreign ownership from a country who is a close ally, has strong political ties, similar financial systems, and works on the same principles as yourself, vs a country who you will quite likely be at war with again within the century, who you have strained political relations with, and who you accuse of and constantly take to the various trade organisations of deceptively rigging their financial and trading systems. China is economically hostile, just as Japan was in the 80s.
The fact that you put this down to xenophobia is just an amazing display of ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan didn't have laws excluding any foreign company from owning more than 50 of a business, so I didn't care at the time. Neither did England.
China, however....
Re: (Score:2)
then I suspect the 'crash' which I've hoped for
I wouldn't hope for any crash, much less a property crash. Just remember what happens when prices come down. It sound great for a new home buyer, but well didn't we just witness what happened in 2008? A sizeable chunk of the population not being able to afford their houses as interest rates spike and the investment value crumbles has a horrible effect on the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
I no longer care, I couldn't care less.
Fuck them all, a generation (or 3!) have been fucked by the Australian government policies and I want to see it all crumble horrifically.
There's far too many "interest only loan" investors with 2,3,4 properties, reducing their taxable income (google: "negative gearing" a true scam for the rich).
Nope the middle class, the young and a small handful of the cautious middle aged (me) have been ruined. Let it fall to utter pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
and I want to see it all crumble horrifically.
Yeah before you do, let me move my pension and all my other investments overseas. You want to shoot yourself in the foot then go right ahead but please don't get blood on everyone else.
google: "negative gearing" a true scam for the rich
Taking a loss on an investment and offsetting it against the tax you pay is a scam? I find it funny you think it's a scam for the rich since they don't pay enough taxes to offset for negative gearing in the first place. Also those with 2 3 4 investment properties driving up the prices? Well a large portion of that you can th
Re: (Score:2)
One particular race is by far the most common, because they are now,
a) rich
b) there's over a billion of them
c) in a country which has inferior health care, schools, breathable air
d) in a country where the government can take their money at will (historically)
The problem is *primarily* Chinese investment. You could re-word my post to say "foreign investment" and remove all elements of race in it, it wouldn't change the fact it's *by far* Chinese investment and even the pro housing blogs, news articles, cite
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Chinese investment is it's an unfair one way street. "Oh, you want to own something here? Sorry! not allowed."
Re: (Score:1)
Foreign investment is a factor, but nowhere near the biggest one is.
The shift from having pensions to superannuation, and the implementation of negative gearing are the biggest issues. Owning multiple homes has become the retirement plan of most of the population. Our politicians (including our prime minister) are some of the largest property investors in the country. We have a level of plutocracy on par with Columbia, and property developers are making a killing. Several IT people I know have already given
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree with you, but bear in mind the subject of this particular article.
I covered this here.
https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
Selling their ass to China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... More shrimp on the Bar-B. G'day.
Can't shrimp the Barby, we sold all our gas too.
I've done my part to help 'em out (Score:2)
I just had a gorgeous Akubra hat sent over. It was 20 days in L.A. customs but I finally got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't tell PETA they're made from rabbit fur. They *are* nice hats, though. Check back in a couple of years when you've worn it in ;-)
Car Industry (Score:1)
The Australian Government's (both Labor and Coalition) over the last 15 years have conspicuously failed to support the automotive industry in the face of the high exchange rate caused by our enormous mineral exports. This is in opposition to the way they supported the banks via all sorts of funny schemes.
As a result Australia is the only country I have ever heard of which has decided that the auto industry is not a good idea.
So first the assembly workers went. Then the factories went. That meant there was n
Re: (Score:3)
You can't keep throwing public money at private companies to preserve local jobs when it's become obvious that we simply can't compete with manufacturing in developing countries. The big automakers have closed because it's just cheaper to make cars in other countries, regardless of how many govt "incentives" they get.
You may as well have the govt nationalise the auto industry if they're going to keep funding it.
That GDP chart .... (Score:2)
You're holding it upside-down mate.
More Starve the Beast? (Score:2)
If you guys are going through this then my apologies. Your ruling class learn
Housing in Australia (Score:3)