Pericles wrote, "The bulk of the footnotes refer to the same document, leaving the cynical to consider the possibility that the sources quoted are somewhat selective."(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#54974)

The document referenced in the submission is Sheila Newman's Master's thesis of 2002: "The Growth Lobby and its Absence: The relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy In Australia and France 1945-2000 with Projections to 2050". It is over 340 pages long including the core document which is 248 pages long. There are 10 pages of listed references, both English and French. Both it (pdf 2.6Mb) and the submission to the Housing Affordability Inquiry (pdf 1.6Mb) can be downloaded from here:

http://www.candobetter.org/sheila

Pericles and Foundation, you both appear to be clutching at straws. Both of you have ignored many of the key points in my earlier contributions, and have instead, tried to score points by attempting to shift the focus onto side issues or by attempts to attack the credibility of Sheila Newman.

What you have done in your latest posts is to take a number of quotes from Sheila Newman's submission out of context and then 'rebut' each quote, in turn, with arguments that few readers will be able to follow, no doubt hoping that they will just take your word for it.

Foundation, you attacked me (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#54912) for not having, up until then, that I had not, up until then, responded to those side issues you raised(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#54677). Now that I have, you have, so far ignored that response.

I will get around to showing up the nonsense in your last posts as just that, if someone else doesn't do it for me first, but not today.

daggett, I read both the presently referenced document and the "masters thesis" with its 835 footnotes.

You can protest all you like, but the quality of both documents as evidence is dubious. As for the thesis, it may be of a standard that achieves a Masters Degree, but it is in no sense the result of impartial, academic research.

Speculation is presented as truth, supported by an impressive-looking footnote, simply because someone had previously made the same random connection between facts.

The writing is careless, often banal...

>>Marxism and capitalism co-incided in the belief that humans created as much wealth as they needed by extracting it and moulding it, almost like clay<<

and the observations frequently questionable...

>>But since business was booming there was plenty of money to start up new businesses for nearly every worker that presented, and automation was more of a choice than a competitive necessity<<

No footnote for that one, I noticed.

But I am being unfair, and did not start with the intention of bagging someone's writing. I simply asked the question - which still begs an answer - what is it about France that makes it a valid comparator with our own situation?

If, as someone pointed out earlier, Ms Newman was not paid for her endeavours, the question is even more important. Spending vast sums of money - it is not cheap travelling to Europe, even for a student - on a project that compares such disparate communities would not have been undertaken lightly, I wouldn't have thought.

So what was the rationale? Inquiring minds would dearly like to know.

Pericles, I recall that you were caught out(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4163#35699) on another thread deliberately misquoting(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4163#35692) Wikipedia on the subject of overpopulation(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation).

No doubt, whatever drove you to do this is also driving you now to resort to all kinds of ploys on this thread to divert the attention of others away from the substance of my argument which is backed up by Sheila Newman's submisssion to the Housing Affordability inquiry, which is, in turn, based on Sheila Newman's Masters thesis of 2002 (see http://www.candobetter.org/sheila). Firstly, you try to imply that the submission was based on selective sources. When I showed that the thesis upon which the submission was based had ten pages of sources listed, you then attempt to divert us into a discussion about Sheila's writing style using a short quote, which you claim is "careless, often banal", but which seems perfetly logical and clear to me.

The reason for using France as a comparator should be obvious, and in any case is explained in Chapter 1 of the thesis. Clearly this country's housing policies have not worked in recent years as we now have the world's least affordable housing. Surely it is of interest to see whether we can do better by comparing Australia with another country which has, at least until very recently managed to provide all of its cititznes with affordable good quality housing.

If you can't begin to address the substance of my arguments and the substance of Sheila Newman's thesis, then your posts to this forum are a waste of everbody's time.

Darn word limit got me again.

Dagget wrote "I will get around to showing up the nonsense in your last posts as just that, if someone else doesn't do it for me first, but not today."

Why continue an off-topic debate? I'd love to tear this piece of garbage to pieces, sentence by sentence if required. Bit of a waste though.

"If you can to prove that increasing population, and hence demand, does not increase the cost of housing then I, and a lot of economists, not to mention property speculators, would be amazed."

Not true. Economists understand full well that supply-side elasticity allows an increase in demand without higher prices. Over the last decade, the supply of new dwellings (~1.8 million dwellings) has exceeded underlying demand from population growth (~2.2 million persons), yet prices have risen dramatically. This would be evidence enough for a qualified economist to rationalise that population growth is not increasing the cost of housing, only the STOCK of housing. I agree, property speculators would be amazed. That is because they are generally incredibly stupid (also selfish and ultimately financially doomed).

"Perhaps, in theory, we could provide affordable housing for a significantly larger population, but only at the expense of our environment, our quality of life and of our long term sustainability..."

Of course increases in population place pressures on the environment and our resources. But this is about housing affordability and economics. Immigration and population issues belong in the people/politics forum and environment, environment. They are important, but completely irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

Likewise, if Sheila and her ilk / supporters have actual reasons to oppose immigration, they should express them appropriately, and not hijack other serious issues such as the housing crisis in order to further the pushing of unrelated barrows. Her argument that lobby groups influence public policy on immigration is valid, though the level of influence is arguable. Evidence that this significantly influences houseprices is absent.

Supposing every migrant bought a house, one each for every man, woman and child (uh-huh) who arrived. This would, at the peak of the boom, have accounted for 116,500 sales in the 2002/2003 year (ABS3412.0). Loan approvals (ABS5609.0) 2002/2003 for purchase of existing or new dwellings for _owner-occupation_ totalled 635,000.

5 years earlier, net migration was 106,200 (ABS3412.0), and OO loan approvals totalled 477,000 (ABS5609.0).

So, even if every single new migrant bought a house (and they sure don’t), the increase in annual demand from pre-boom to peak-boom would be 10,300 dwellings. The increase in annual supply was 158,000 – almost 148,000 more dwellings than could be (ir)rationally explained by immigration demand.

Let’s look at just ONE other source of demand – investors.
In 1998 they accounted for 30% of all new housing finance, by the end of 1993 this had risen to over 40% (ABS 5609.0 Table 11), and 50% in some cities. Sure, you say, they were renting them to migrants…

1998 – 2003 saw rental vacancy rates rise from 2.5% to 4% (RBA), while rental costs fell (adjusted for inflation). This indicates over-supply of rental property. Yet prices doubled.

Is this a bubble? Hell-yes! Will it correct? Of course. Will the fall-out be ugly? Doubtless. Can we blame foreigners? _NO!!_

It’s our fault. Our reckless accumulation (and supply) of debt. Our greed. Our motto “Houses for profit, not people”. Our disregard for the needs of the younger generation. Our $6 billion annual subsidy/welfare payment directly to private landlords (CRA + Neg-gearing). Our belief that house prices never fall. Our certainty that asset inflation will exceed borrowing costs (interest) indefinitely, and that this state exists in a balanced economy. Our refusal to save in times of plenty for the inevitable lean times ahead. Our fault, our fault, OUR FAULT! Not ‘theirs’.

- - - - -

One last look:
1998-2003 popgrowth = 6.2%, REAL HPI = 54%
1988-1993 popgrowth = 6.2%, REAL HPI = -4%
…but we shouldn’t compare apples to apples. Let’s see, in France…

ABS, Abelson & Chung (2004)

- - - - -

daggett, that desperate and emotional little stab that eclipse aimed at me back in March was but a single shot in a fusillade. I was pointing out that the slogan, "Resources / population = lifestyle!" was a poor substitute for clarity of thought, while eclipse was getting hot under the collar defending the indefensible.

So you have managed to take it entirely out of context - which, guess what, is exactly what eclipse took me to task on, all those months ago!

Ironic, eh!

>>you then attempt to divert us into a discussion about Sheila's writing style using a short quote<<

The word limit here prevents a thorough analysis of Ms Newman's quoted pieces, hence I could only offer a couple of short examples of their muddled thinking.

>>The reason for using France as a comparator should be obvious<<

In order to compare two items in the hope that a change in one might provide clues to change/non-change in the other, you need to establish some form of credible baseline.

For example, you have two cricket balls, one that has been in use for eightyfive overs, the other still new. Since they both started off in the same condition, it is possible to posit that it is eightyfive overs of usage that caused the changes.

My first issue is the use of recently post-war France, given that not a single Australian dwelling had been destroyed during that conflict.

Add to that the war damage to each economy and the similarities are so few as to be derisory.

Then there are the small issues of population density, and the relative age of buildings in Sydney and Paris...

Sorry. No baseline, just a conveniently pleasant place to spend ones vacations.

>>If you can't begin to address the substance of my arguments and the substance of Sheila Newman's thesis, then your posts to this forum are a waste of everbody's time.<<

What you mean to say is

>>If you can't agree with my arguments and the substance of Sheila Newman's thesis, then your posts to this forum are a waste of my time<<