Another one who gets to the station long after the gravy-train has left.

Those politicians did not give grants to promote ownership but to prolong their stay in power.

And their pretence was ‘liberalism’.

Come-on, Mr. Eslake! Why economists were so silent when it all happened?

Mr Eslake demonstrates once again the gulf between economics and politics. Ne'er the twain shall meet, it would appear.

The tale of how successive governments have tinkered with this form of electoral bribe is a classic example of the triumph of the sound-bite over sound thinking.

Whenever it is introduced, it is accompanied by a governmental fanfare of how they are "helping the battlers", or some such flannel.

Governments know, from long experience, that the electorate has the attention span of an amphetamine-fuelled gnat, and a grasp of financial matters similar to that of my goldfish. So they call it a "policy", wrap it up in pretty paper and dance around a bit, going "lookit moi, lookit moi", fully expecting the voter to be dazzled by the pretty colours and the warm, sincere tones.

Works.

Every time.

Never confuse government policy with reality, Mr Eslake. That way lies madness.

The grant raised the price of houses by the value of the grant and thereby cost the purchaser the same amount. It was a First Home Vendors grant as Steven Keen puts it. The money went to the vendors.

Not so, Atman. The vendor did not make a cent out of that deal.

Steve Keen was lying and he knew it.

Who was billed for that grant were exactly you and me.

We did not receive a formal invoice, but inflation, otherwise known as political robbery, is a silent, progressive and malicious tax at the whim of politicians and their associates.

Long live our inflating democracy!

"Skeptic", you are wrong, wrong, wrong in accusing me of being "silent" about this "while it all happened". As no less an authority than the founder of OLO himself, Graham Young, can attest, I have been advocating the abolition of cash grants to home buyers for more than 30 years, including during the 14 years while I was at ANZ. I was throughout this time also an advocate of abolishing, or restricting, "negative gearing", notwithstanding that funding negatively-geared property investments was profitable business for my then employer.

So by all means say I am wrong, if you think I am (and especially if you can actually adduce some evidence that I am), but don't accuse me of being cowardly - especially when you don't have the intestinal fortitude to put your name to your comments.

I'm with Saul. Back in the early 80s when we were both active in Young Libs (Saul was federal president the year after I was federal vice-president) he was campaigning against it.

I was a bit slower to work it out, but then as an arts student I had a handicap, but I remember being convinced somewhere around 83/84.

I remember at the same time Saul was also campaigning against the damming of the Gordon below Franklin and had some strong things to say about the Tasmanian Hydroelecticity Commission, which didn't make him very popular with the Tasmanian Liberal Party who were very gungho.

The last thing you can accuse Saul of is lacking ticker, and I think you should apologise.