Pericles,

You may rationalise it all you wish, but I have shown (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#55320) that your misquoting of the Wikipedia article on overpopulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation) served to lead readers to believe that its authors were not arguing that:

overpopulation = population/resources

As your posts would have misled readers on that forum, you have attempted here to divert attention away from the underlying weakness in your case by your self-serving insulting pronouncements on the quality of Sheila Newman's work, without bothering to show where her underlying arguments are wrong. (And please don't plead that you don't have space. Anyone can get free space on the web, eg. at www.blogspot.com, or you can even post to http://www.candobetter.org/node/9 if you wish.)

Once, again, back to the main issue at hand:

The thesis upon which the submission to the Housing Affordability is based, (see http://www.candobetter.org/sheila for both documents) shows incontrovertibly that by increasing the population level, mostly through increased immigration, increases the value of land in which property speculators speculate. This is not to deny that other factors also add to housing inflation, or that on occasions an oversupply of housing may lead to a temporary fall in prices, but the long term trend and the cause and effect are clear from the graphs contained in the submission. Once again, see:

http://www.candobetter.org/sheila/housingPriceRisesInCapitalCities.jpg
http://www.candobetter.org/sheila/housingPriceRisesInRegionalAreas.jpg
http://www.candobetter.org/sheila/housingPriceRisesInFrance.jpg

These conclusions were accepted by the inquiry. This is also what our intuition should tell us and what I have shown to be common knowledge amongst property speculators.

I had already answered the question "Why France?" above (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#54827), and a more detailed answer is to be found also in the abstract to the thesis, to be found here : http://www.candobetter.org/sheila/thesisAbstract.html.

There are enough similarities between our two societies for us to be able to draw useful conclusions as to whether or not we stand to benefit by adopting the policies of France in regards to population stability and laws designed to curtail property speculation. These laws have allowed its citizens, at least up until very recently, to enjoy decent affordable housing.

If you disagree then please argue your case why.

Dagget claims: “The thesis upon which the submission to the Housing Affordability is based shows incontrovertibly that by increasing the population level, mostly through increased immigration, increases the value of land in which property speculators speculate.”

And once again, I say… No. It doesn’t.

Dagget claims: “These conclusions were accepted by the inquiry”

Again I say “No! This is blatantly untrue!” Let’s read what the PC’s report actually says in relation to population growth.

P19. “The major determinants of the underlying growth in demand for additionaldwellings are population growth and the propensity of people to form households.Both have played a significant longer-term role, but do not explain the surge in demand and prices since the mid-1990s.”

Note 1: Demand for additional dwellings
Note 2: “do not explain the surge in demand and PRICES”

P22. “…realistic expectations about income and population growth, or other ongoing drivers of housing demand, cannot support a continuation of recent price growth.”

P73. “Population growth and the trend towards smaller numbers of residents per household (chapter 4) will have similar price impacts.”

Note: Read this sentence carefully. Perhaps it does not say what you’d think?

P93. From FINDINGS “Growth in immigration since the mid-1990s has been an important contributor to underlying demand,… …overall population growth has not been a key driver of recent rapid increases in house prices”

Note: Underlying demand. Not prices.

P95. “This suggests that population pressures have not been a major cause of the recent acceleration in house prices across the country,”

P101. “despite higher national immigration, annual population growth in most cities and states has been either lower or only marginally higher since the start of the recent housing boom, than it was in the preceding five year period”

P103. “Since 1996, there has been virtually no population growth in the 25 to 34 year old age group, which is likely to include most first home buyers”

P104. “The conclusion that population growth and household formation trends have not been major drivers of the recent national increase in house prices is supported by estimates of the underlying demand for dwellings.”

The report’s KEY FINDINGS:

"+ Fluctuations in prices and ‘affordability’ are inherent features of housing markets.

+ The upswing in housing prices since the mid-1990s has been bigger and more widespread than in previous cycles.

+ Rising house prices indicate that demand has been outstripping supply.
– Much of this increase in housing demand has been due to cheaper, more accessible finance and buoyant economic growth through the 1990s.
– This led to higher prices because of inherent limitations on the responsiveness of housing supply to surges in demand, particularly as much of the demand came from existing home owners seeking to ‘upgrade’ in established areas.

+ Only in the last couple of years have house prices surpassed levels that are explicable on this basis, with some additional investment seemingly predicated on unrealistic expectations (in a ‘supportive’ tax environment) of ongoing capital gains.

+ To the extent that currently low housing affordability reflects cyclical price pressures, this will eventually be reversed. (Evidence of market cooling is already emerging.) However, there is a role for policy to address forces that can cause prices to be excessive over the entire housing cycle.

+ Interactions between negative gearing, ‘capital works’ deductions, post-1999 capital gains provisions and marginal income tax rates have lent impetus to investment demand during the housing boom.

+ Reducing reliance on stamp duties would help first home buyers and improve the efficiency of housing markets over time.

+ There is also scope to moderate price and affordability pressures over time by:
– improving land release and planning approval processes; and
– ensuring that developer charges for infrastructure relate appropriately to the benefits provided to home buyers.

+ The First Home Owner Scheme, though conceived to compensate for the GST, would have more impact on home ownership if better targeted at lower income households.”

No mention of immigration. Plenty of factors that HAVE decreased affordability. The only reference to Sheila’s work was its inclusion in the list of submissions. Would people please refrain from further claims that the Productivity Commission endorsed or agreed with the views of this submission?

Foundation,

You wrote yourself that the inquiry concluded : "The major determinants of the underlying growth in demand for additional dwellings are population growth ...".

Of course no-one, Sheila Newman least of all, has denied that there are other factors which add to housing inflation. What you are trying to do is to use the fact that there are other factors to obfuscate on the question as to whether population growth, itself, is a major cause. It obviously was back then and is today, most of all, in Queensland and in Western Australia.

Do you seriously expect us to believe that we can go on adding 140,000 per year to our population and not have the cost of housing go up? Clearly the REIQ believes it will as I have shown above. Tell me why you believe they are wrong.

Also, how about addressing my arguments the environmental destruction caused by population growth and the building of housing for the additional people - the fact that Moreton Bay is filling up with silt and the fact that ever more tracts of native bushland are being lost, etc, etc? How do you think we can go on providing housing for an increasing population and avoid this destruction? Surely the cost to the environment and the cost to future generations of creating the additional housing has to be factored in when we consider whether or not housing can be made affordable.

Will be back ....

daggett, you have a strange approach to discussion.

If you make a statement like "Australia is the same as France", I am surely entitled to ask "on what basis do you draw that conclusion?"

Your response is little more than "because I say so" - or, more accurately, "because she says so".

I then point out some areas in which the countries clearly differ, and which have a bearing on the relevance of their relationship, and you take the offensive "if you disagree then please argue your case why"

How can I agree or disagree when the basis of the comparison is still a mystery?

I have stated my reasons for believing they do not qualify as comparators. You have yet to challenge these.

Pericles, you wrote(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#55430):

"... you still fail to offer an answer to my original question.

"In case you have forgotten, it was 'why France?'"

This is yet another lie which can only serve to mislead those trying to make sense out of this discussion.

Kanga, Olduvai and I have provided answers to these questions. The fact that you deem them to be unsatisfactory does not mean that we have not offered answers to the question.

As an example, Kanga wrote:

"Housing in France (and much of Western continental Europe) is very affordable in comparison to Australia's.

You dismissed this, saying "Many other countries can also claim this attribute. Why pick on France?"

Well, Pericles, why not France?

In any case, if you had bothered to look at the contents of Sheila Newman's submission, which you tell us that you have read, she refers to a number or other countries including Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy, Holland, Belgium, the USA and Canada.

Are you going to also turn around and demand that we also defend the comparison of Australia to each of these countries in turn? If you dispute that France or any one of these countries make valid comparators, then what comparators would you suggest, and why?

Or perhaps you dispute altogether the validity of comparing Australian housing policy with the housing policies of a single other country?

Your seeming attempts to mislead and to to divert the discussion away from the substance of my posts and Sheila Newman's thesis and her submission to side issues, can lead me to no conclusion other than that you have no wish to seriously discuss these issues.

Rather, it seems that you intend to misuse your voice on this forum to prevent people understanding the evidence which shows that population growth leads to the increase in the price of land and that is why property speculators have lobbied fiercely in favour of it, without any regard to the welfare of those already living in this country, our environment or our long term sustainability.