PK

>>I made the distinction between affordabability in the general sense and in the particular, but you do not seem to have done so.<<

That is because there is none.

>>By your logic, the most expensive houses sold in Sydney, priced in the tens of millions, are still 'affordable'<<

That is because they are.

The number of buyers able to afford such prices is clearly more limited, but by definition the houses are affordable.

The only way your argument - that there is some "affordabability in the general sense" - can be sustained, would be if every house, in every suburb, in every town in every State of Australia is affordable by every Australian. Any other definition will automatically exclude some portion of the community, and "affordability" once again becomes particular, rather than general.

There is no "general sense" of affordability. Take the apartment market in 1950's Moscow. Theoretically, rents were capped so as to be "affordable" by all. However, in order to qualify for a superior apartment you had to have a sufficiently important job.

In 1950's Moscow that job would be a major party apparatchik, whereas the Sydney equivalent today would be a manager at the Millionaire Factory, but the principle is identical.

"Affordability" in the sense it is being bandied around in this thread is an entire furphy.

Pericles:

Rubbish.

Enough said.

PK "Pericles:

Rubbish.

Enough said. "

I take that as your admission of surrender and defeat, as far as your spat is concerned.

Pericles, as you might guess....

I agree with your reasoning.

Dockland 50% held by investors... sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

When things get bad (or less good), as they inevitably do in property cycles, l would hate to own one of those concrete boxes when everyones heading for the exit... at the same time.

Owning one after late coming chiken counters have stopped running around madly looking for their missing heads... that's another matter entirely.

The dockland is apparently going to add around 30k dwellings by the time its completed. Wounder if any urban type of slums will eventually pop up amongst those dank little laneways where the franchise operators look very un-happy behind the counters of those shops with unscuffed floors.

Col

“With all markets, supply and demand are always balanced by price. Governments piddling around with either supply or demand simply distort the market in the short term and create a problem for the future.”

But how does the notion of supply and demand always determines the price sit with the fact that land prices are highly inflated? Is anyone disagreeing with the 500+% increase in land in real terms in Perth over the last 30 years, or the nearly 700% increase in Sydney or the nearly 1000% increase Adelaide are grossly inflated prices?

If they are just market-driven, what does it say about market forces?

The real estate industry promotes populaton growth for its own gain. This is a distortion of the market. And it is a bigger distortion when governments do it as well, largely because the powerful real estate lobby and other big business people want it.

The fact is, governments and the industry itself distort the market. So government policy that would work to even up the wealth distribution between buyers and developers/profiteers would be no less of a distortion than what is currently happening.

No, Col, not an admission of defeat, just a recognition that the debate has reached a point of futility, if not absurdity. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to dispel Pericles' and your notion that anything that sells is by definition affordable and by the same reasoning there is no such thing as unaffordability in the housing market. I've drawn a line under it. Hang on your belief, your Liberal party loyalty and your delusionary triumphalism if that's what floats your boat.

My central point however, that the Federal government's policies, not the state government's policies on land releases, are the more important in gauging effect on property prices, stands.

See you on some other thread.