Non sense!

Academic trash!

The problem is in the many that have their fingers in the Pie.

Federal Governments, State Governments, Local Governments, Media moguls,
Lawyers, and that body whose unchallengeable monopoly makes of each of them a soldier of a well disciplined army, determined to suck the sap of anyone in need of a piece of land.

I am talking of the one and only Real Estate Institute of Australia

How do you account for serviceable Homes being bull dozed to make way for Real Estate Gamblers to build Warehouse style holmes for the BMW Sect . Harvey St; Bendigo two homes Miners Cottages probably 65 thousand each a real estate Parasite buys both Cottages then markets the land package for $385000 is he Brilliant? In my view he is not he has deprived two young families of the opportunity to own their own home .

Stop viewing Holmes as terrific Investment Opportunities and think about
the Human Elements .

I broadly agree with this article, but it's disappointing to see the author falling back on outdated multiplier estimates to try to reinforce the argument. Though published on the ABS website, these data are estimates of the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.

In an economy at or near full employment, the real multiplier effects are likely to be smaller.

“The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey for 2011 found that bar Hong Kong, Sydney was the most expensive city, coming in at 81 on a total of 82 international metropolitan areas.

Demographia measures affordability as median property price divided by median household income and it comes up with a measure of 9.2 for Sydney.”

http://www.smh.com.au/money/borrowing/bricks-and-mortar-out-of-reach-20110131-1aabg.html

In this country, “developer” now means “land or housing developer”.

And what has all this land and housing development done?

There are Australian cities that have become some of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, in a country that now imports almost everything, has one of the highest rates of external debt in the world, and relies on coal and iron ore exports to keep it afloat.

This is also a highy feminist country where 1 in 4 households is now a single person household, thereby pushing up the demand for housing, artificially increasing the costs of housing, and destroying native bushland or productive farmland in the process of building new subdivisions.

Basically, three pages to say "you need a house to live in (and sometimes, do business in)" and the added benefit that loaning/investment industries (the author) and construction industries make money from making and selling/renting houses (oh, and the transaction is officially added to our economic record).

No arguments there, but I can't help but wonder why the need to waffle- the same point above was just repeated over and over using the most peacemeal syntax, perhaps as if to try to make it seem more complex?
To me it rubs of as trying to sell a concept as being much more benign than it actually is in laymans- or perhaps to try to tie investment industries as an intrinsic part of house design and construction? (which it most definitely is NOT by a long shot)

I hope this is not an attempt to justify the large-scale property development industry, by any chance, would it?

I think the author has perhaps exagerated the multiplier effect as did Keynes before him. Readhttp://www.qedinteractive.com.au/Chapman%20Keynesian%20Multiplier%20Paper%20for%20ATEC%202009%20Revised.pdf

David

<utterly false and highly destructive economic dogma>

How about the idea that high house prices are good for the economy? Would our lives be better if the price of something were lower? Be it cars, tellys, bread, milk or bog roll, I think the consensus would be that a lower price for such items would have a positive economic impact. Yet there seems to be this pervasive dogma in the media that expensive housing is a good thing, and that any price fall will be associated with calamity.