Most clear thinking people are sick and tired of the bleats about "high" interest rates and the burden they create for mortgagors. Many of us can recall parents paying 3.75% pa ..... in the 1950s. A generation ago I myself paid a "capped" rate of 13.5% pa to buy my first home. And some others were paying more than 17% pa. Now housing loan rates are not much more than half that. The burden for homeowners and in particular first homeowners is created by the price of housing, not the price of money. Yes, land development and home construction form a significant part of our GDP, and need to be watched closley as indicators of economic well-being, but monetary policy remains the most gentle tool avaiable to government. Let Reality Rule !

Is it possible that first home owners are aiming too high? I grew up (and not that long ago) in a house with next to no heating (oil heater in the kitchen) and an airconditioner that ran twice a year (we got it installed when I was 5 so I remember a time before that). As a child I had to run across open verandah from bathroom to kitchen in all sorts of weather to get dressed by that oil heater in winter (my parents eventually closed in that verandah, but they put up with it for 12 years first). My first house was a $60000 100 year old (at least) cottage, that had been extended twice (the original building was just 2 rooms), and had no a/c. My second house (after selling the first) is a 2 bedroom 60's creation with asbestos lining in the kitchen and bathroom. There is no immediate danger from this as there are no raw or exposed fibres, but the fact remains that I am living in a house with asbestos. When I have my second child, the kids will have to share a room - shock horror!! It seems these days that this is not acceptable. There must be a private space for each child. Mine will probably hate me for it particularly when they are teenages, but thems the breaks. Generation Y needs to lower their expectations, start modestly, and work their way up. Given my first house cost, my repayments have remained less than I could have rented a similar house for, so guess who is winning in the long run.

I walked through a house for sale the other weekend, built in the 1960's, and it was so small. Back then, I believe a block cost about $2000 and the construction cost about $6000. So as a proportion, land was cheap and anything that is undervalued is wasted so the typical suburban house had a big back yard, a front yard that was never used, and a strip of concrete driveway down one side to a garage down the back.

The house on the otherhand was built economically, sometimes with only two bedrooms.
Today, the cost of building the house is cheap compared to the cost of the block of land. So valuable is the land little is left for recreation let alone a strip covered in concrete for a car to roll over. So we get the McMansion which economically makes it sensible to utilize as much of the expensive land as possible. It also makes sense to build two stories as it doesn't cost anymore land.

Once an affordability gap opens up it is unlikey to close.
First home owner's grants tend to be self defeating as they just feed into prices.

On TV recently, one developer/builder said the combined imposts of taxes and charges from all levels of government, averaged about $130,000 per new house.

So if governments at all levels were a lot less tax greedy, they could effect lower housing costs.

I'd like to know why the eminently sensible option of expanding public housing stock is not discussed here. With housing prices skyrocketing - partly as a consequence of Howard's first home owners grant - which fuelled the housing boom, and rent following the trend, why aren't we investing in public housing to put downwards pressure on rental prices, and provide affordable accomodation to those who have little other option?

Yes, it seems like there's a constant ideological offensive against the very idea of public housing - and the idea might seem unpopular for some - but many have little choice - and others are living in poverty and getting nowhere in their attempt to exist in a highly charged housing market, and make ends meet.What other weapons do we have against inflated housing prices? I'd like to hear more about these 'rent/buy' schemes.

Whinge, whinge whinge. My parents never owned a home. Most people now want 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms with all the modern cons as well as a new car by the time they are 30. We have more now than any other generation and we still whinge about interest rates being 7.5% or so. The coffee shops are always full, people have money to have a few drinks and eat out on a regular basis. There will always be those who won't be able to afford things no matter how much money they get or how many opportunities they have. Maybe we should try something different and be thankful for the blessings we have. Where I live anyone who breathes can get work if they want it.

Who says that everyone is entitled to own a house? Some do not want the responsibility or have other things to spend their money on. Investment advisers say that it is smarter to rent and invest elsewhere.

As for public housing, it is a scandal that individuals and couples can retain large houses while families are held out.

Another problem is in the cost of maintaining public housing. People in public housing believe the guvvy will do everything for them. It is obvious that public housing tenants do nothing to help with keeping the property in good condition.

What about tightening up what the tenants are responsible for to encourage them to reduce the cost of maintenance? Dept of Defence tenants are the same; they expect a high standard of property and maintenance but they wouldn't even water the garden or fix a tap washer. It has got to where an electrician has to be called to replace a light bulb.

Government depend on the private sector to provide welfare housing but government treats owners of investment property as a geese for the plucking.

However most rental property is owned by low to middle income earners who sacrifice their own quality of life for decades in the hope of capital gain (promoted by spruikers).

These owners run high risks, in the hope of a profit from inflation! As geese they have been plucked enough and it is easy to see how a collapse in rental housing could eventuate.

Who trusts Labor with housing? There are regular demands from their lobby groups for action against property owners. While some of this is just jealousy - which seems to be an enduring but not endearing feature of the Left - all of it demonstrates a lack of knowledge of just how tight it is for investment property owners who are providing a much needed servive in a very highly regulated industry.

There must be some agenda here, because on its own the statement "home ownership is less affordable" is meaningless.

The sale of a plasma TV indicates that someone can afford it. But there are many people who do not buy plasma TVs, because i) they can afford one but do not want one, ii) cannot afford one but do not want one, iii) cannot afford one but would really like one or iv) can afford one, do want one, but not as much as they want an SUV.

The actual plasma TV does not feature in the discussion except as the object of the buy/not buy matrix. It has no abstract attribute of affordability; its affordability is a factor of the potential purchaser, not of itself.

Different countries, different cultures, different generations, all have differing attitudes towards house (or plasma TV) purchase. If house purchase really did become difficult, then buyers would be scarce and the price would fall. Japan has had some experience of this.

The reality, although the "dark side of the boom" bleaters hate to admit it, is that housing has become a lifestyle choice, and has moved way beyond the concept of simply a roof over ones head. If it is simply shelter you want, purchasing a house is quite a long way down the list of options.

As it always has been.

There was a time when the amount which could be borrowed to buy a home was determined by just one income. This tended to keep prices in check. I remember when the rules were changed to the combined income of both partners being the determining factor of the loan. I thought that this was a bad move and that the extra borrowing power would just be gobbled up in price increases. And this is exactly what happened, with the average price of single residential blocks quickly tripling.

I certainly agree that expectations on the size and amenity of the house [but not the size of the block] have increased dramatically, but maybe this is also related to the huge mortgage which is theoretically repayable if two incomes are combined.

The Howard Government is a feudalist government. One only has to look at the rapidly changing spectrum of Australia where the wealthy have everything and the rest can bugger off.

Homelessness is on the rise with disabled and young families joining the mentally ill who sleep on concrete and camber.

The ALP is equally guilty. We need fascist policy to put people on track.

Listen to you lot. You have absolutely no idea at all and couldn't give a rats behind, so is the greed of your generation.

Yes, people do look too high but wasn't that created by the Baby Boomer's? Isn't this generation that gave us credit cards that has given society nothing but trouble? Just ask the Salvation Army.

I'd love to buy my first home. Where I live, the average house that are old three bedrooms sold for about $90,000 - $180,000. Due to the baby boomer's in the southern states offering $50,000 on top of the going price, locals have been pushed right out of the market as sellers demand what the southerner's offer. This and policies of the Federal and State governments has made the average house here sell from $300,000 plus in only two years.

This is not healthy for the nation. Rents are sky rocketing which is seeing aged people now being pushed out of the rental market because they can't afford the rent.

But Australian's are too selfish and too short sighted to see the damage being done to Australia.

No Spider. Australians are the victims of a century of very, very, skilful electoral fraud which has driven real talent, and more important, integrity, from the field of public life. Federation was an intended sham and fraud from the get-go. The only good thing to come out of it was the Constitution. If you have ears to hear, then hear. The heirs to this system are telling you, for example, that the present drought doesn't really exist; that it can all be fixed by a bit of constitutional sleight of hand. Do your own thinking. It might, no, will, be painful, but in the end it will be worthwhile.

Spider

Don't buy that intergenerational jealousy line peddled by the federal government. Some have a vested interest in having us blame one another.

I worked and saved for many years to buy an old house in the wrong area. Not much in the way of furniture for years. I lived hand to mouth in a continuing renovation project working nights and weekends to improve it. I still lead a thrifty existence.

When I moved to my next and slightly better house, again mortgaged to the hilt, the previous house I renovated with love and care was trashed in six months by tenants.

I rented for years and saved for even longer. I can tell that houses always were dear and they were never easy to buy or maintain. I remember that most couples scrimped and saved for a deposit for down and out flats because they had to start somewhere.

You commit to making your own food (not reheating pre-cooked) and making sandwiches for lunch. Buy cheaper clothes when clothes wear out, not for fashion reasons. Use public transport and walk. Go to the Public Library. There are plenty of ways to save and I know because I had to do it as did everyone else.

There were days when people did not think they had to own a car, heaps of electronics, mobile phones, entertainment units and nor did they go to the pub.

There are things young people take as givens that would have been seen as extravagant luxuries only a few decades ago. What is wrong with people that they have been so easily persuaded into endless consumption in an effort to make themselves happy? Do people really need all of the stuff they buy?

Many people could own their own pads if they were prepared to so without for a long time and start low in the market. That is what inyending buyers have always had to do. Have a look around, there are young people doing that right now and near you.

Housing affordability – the calculation which takes a snapshot of
median house prices : prevailing interest rate : Average Income

Plus a few other inputs – like the cost and availability of rental housing and sense of job security.

The formula works like this, an increase or decrease in interest rates will reflect directly onto house prices. An increase or decrease in average income will reflect directly onto house prices. Both income and interest rates being reasonably flexible are more quickly reflected in the market than housing supply, which tends to be less “elastic” partly because the timeline between planning and construction and also because of the lead time in buyers and sellers matching needs and prices.

“Affordability” will always waver around the 30% +/-3% in any snapshot calculation as the less elastic supply of housing adjust more slowly to an instantaneous change in interest rates or incomes (in a low unemployment work market).

Snapshot taken immediately after a change to say, interest rates will be momentarily distorted until housing supply has adjusted to the change in the market.

Comparing housing booms to dot com bubbles is hyperbole in the extreme.

Building more houses is one thing, public / municipal ownership of housing is another. More houses will reduce prices, just as fewer houses will increase prices.

“At a recent housing ministers' meeting the Labor states proposed shared equity and rent/buy schemes”

Things like joint ownership were tried in the 1980 and failed in the 1990s when those most vulnerable, who accepted this “socialist soft option”, were financially crucified by it.
Even UK charities criticized it when suggested in UK

http://www.in2perspective.com/nr/2005/05/shelter-attacks-shared-equity-plan.jsp;jsessionid=62ACC524253D4BEC544BC35057ACF42C

A responsible government would recognize, just as Canute recognized he could not control the tide, they cannot control the tidal forces which work in every supply and demand situation. It is the arrogance of the unlearned to presume otherwise.

A market left to its own devices will adjust with greater responsibility and efficiency than when some theorocrat starts meddling with the process.

Spider “We need fascist policy”

Please elaborate on exactly what “fascist policies” you are talking about.

Thanks for your analysis, Col. But one thing you didn't factor in is the availabilty [some would say the over-availabilty] of credit and the current guidelines for assessing feasible mortgage credit limits.

As I said before, there was a time when the allowable mortgage limit was determined by just one income. Then the rule was changed to allow the combined income of both partners to be the determining factor. And, almost immediately, single residential block prices increased dramatically.

I realise that this is not likely to happen, but I would like to see the following:
An announcement that the combined income mortgage rule would hold for the next twelve months.
Then the measure would change to a combination of 100% of one income plus 90% of the other, for the following twelve months.
Then 100% of one plus 80% of the other for the next twelve months.
And so on, until we got back to the one income limit system.

Spider, if you dont like the prices where you are then either downgrade your own ambitions for your house, or move. I said earlier that I bought my first house for $65,000. That was only 3 years ago, and was in an area where most 3 bedroom homes were selling for $150k+. You can imagine then what mine might have been like compared to the average. But that got me into the market. I am a member of generation Y, but I dont blame the baby-boomers for the current housing issues. I blame it squarely on those with ambitions that are too lofty for their incomes. I was brought up being taught that if you want something, then wait 24 hours before buying it, and spend that time talking yourself out of it. Heck, I remember one Christmas Santa's present to each of us was a $2 coin in each stocking. Until I left home and started earning my own money, I only had 2 sets of clothes that were new, and I was the eldest child. The rest came from older cousins and from Vinnies. My friends are horrified when I buy SH clothes for my kids. Heck, my daughter has been known to wear clothes that my mother made for me. I have a handmade (home grown) wool jumper that my mother knitted for an older cousin that has just turned 40. It needs the elastic around the bottom replaced, but otherwise is in beaut condition.

As a result of my thift and willingness to start at the bottom, I have around 30% equity in my home, with repayments less then $160/week. In comparison I have friends that pay in excess of $500/week. Guess who is winning!

Col, fascist policy overall where homeless are housed, educated and trained. Policy of industry and commerce which would stop destructive globalism. Housing for all people, not just rich. Not in a communist way either.

CountryGal, I grew up very poor and yes, 3 years ago it was easy to buy a house at such a low price. You show me where now. Look at Perth about to become more expensive than Sydney. Read my post above about prices. There is nowhere that has low housing. Families and aged are become homeless because of all this. I have children which is even tighter. Not everyone wants something so expensive. I'm happy to buy the house I'm now which would have increased in price by about $150,000 in less than two years.

This is all very wrong and when the time comes, this greed will be our downfall.

Country Gal - I admire your efforts to make a life for yourself - but why should those on average and lower incomes be forced into outer suburbs with poor infrastructure and services - and often great difficulty making their way to work? Sure - it makes affording a house easier - but for equity reasons, there should not be such a geographical division.

Rex – the “affordability” calculation is not influenced by lending practices, although as you point out, the market price will be influenced by the availability credit.

I do not think the notion of a single wage only being allowed as a basis for assessing “capacity” is any longer appropriate simply because the nature of work and division of responsibilities within a “typical” marriage has changed. If a couple decide that the priorities in their life is to work to buy a house and forego children for a time, why should their decision be restricted to the equivalent opportunity of a single person?
Further, in these days of lo-doc lending, a form to which I have availed myself and am very satisfied with, where proof of income is irrelevant, merely the borrowers undertaking to their capacity to service the debt, reduces the contemporary suitability of your suggestion. I would note part of the process is the desire for all those funds being poured into superannuation to be placed back into the market in a reasonably secure investment, which is housing mortgages represents a source of non-bank lending which was not so commonly available a few decades ago.

It is all a side effect of a "deregulated" banking system.

Country gal – congratulations, you have done as my elder daughter did, bought when she had saved about $40K and has watched her first property improve significantly in value over then past 5 years. Now at age 26 is into her second property. Responsibility is to avoid being a burden on the state by looking after your own future, no one will care enough about you as much as you do yourself.

Spider “fascist policy ……”

So what are these “fascist policies” to which you allude but have not explained?

Sorry to seem obtuse but your statement means nothing unless it is a little more “specific” to your meaning of.

I am particularly interested in the “fascist” solutions you have for “housing the homeless” and what you have in mind as “industry and commercial” policies to stop “destructive globalism”.

Col, Communism owned everything while the purer elements of fascism dictates that essential infrastructure(water, electricity, mining, etc) is retained by the state while business is encouraged to own what we are seeing big business take complete control of. Also, stratification of society is retained as middle class and lower class are needed, not destroyed as we are seeing in Australia today.

Homeless; the removal of youth off the streets who are then housed, educated and trained. Not left on the streets after they were rejected by their parent/s as is the reason in most cases. Jamie Oliver made a good statement that of his homeless chef students, 98% of parents refused to support their children.

With housing, the growing trend of feudalism in Australia where the few own the properties forcing most families out, is viewed with disgust for all people should have the chance to enter the market, not just those who crave to buy up the market for themselves. I can't go into exact policy in this at the present time as it is being formulated worldwide. Many are being formulated and they won't be rushed.

Spider “essential infrastructure”

Where do you draw the line on what is essential? For instance,
Is electricity “essential”,
are telephones “essential”
is insurance and superannuation “essential”.
Is a banking industry “essential”?
How about retail and food distribution networks, are they “essential”?

How would you compensate the current owners for their loss of investment when the state acquires the commercial benefits which they presently own?

I have every sympathy with every child who is, for whatever reason, separated from his or her natural parents but “98% of parents refused to support their children”, I assume, applies to those children who are “on the street” and not all children in general.

If a child is willful and refuses to comply with the rules his or her parents set for conduct within the family, should they remain accountable for children who seek the privations of the street versus the discipline and responsibility which comes with being a family member?

“Where the few own the properties forcing most families out,” Australia has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. My own daughter, through her own efforts and without assistance from her Father or Mother saved a deposit and bought her first house for herself in 2001 at age 21.
Her younger sister is doing the same today, saving with intention to buy.

What is your view on private investors building rental property for say, 5% rent return, recognizing the funding costs will be at least 7%, should they carry a 2% rental loss? What do you see as a way to encourage greater investment in rental housing stock?

What practical steps are you suggesting should be adopted to rectify what you see as a problem from concentration in housing ownership?

“I can't go into exact policy in this at the present time as it is being formulated worldwide. Many are being formulated and they won't be rushed.”

I would hate to rush you but exactly who or which organization is doing the “formulation”?

Do you have a web source from where they distribute their manifesto and policy statements?

Spider said, "With housing, the growing trend of feudalism in Australia where the few own the properties forcing most families out."

That is nonsense.

A few years ago I went to the Qld Rental Tenancies Authority (RTA) briefing for property owners and property managers on changes to rental tenancy regulations. What really struck me about the property owners who attended was that they were all very ordinary looking people, mostly middle-aged and almost all were in clothes that would not be out of place in a suburban shopping centre in a poorer side of town. They were not wealthy people.

Why I relate this story is to underline the simple fact proved over and over by ABS statistics, that the substantial majority of rental property is owned by low and middle income earners who own usually one, but sometimes up to three properties. Such properties are heavily mortgaged because they have to be, otherwise the owners could not afford to have them. They take out a big loan to invest in another house while having an outstanding mortgage on their own home.

They are old-fashioned and do not trust shares and probably do not have superannuation either. No wonder so many of them report they live like church mice and are used to making sacrifices.

Also, if you take the time to read internet forums of property investors you will quickly get the impression that the ones who are doing well out of investment real estate are the spruikers and the tenants - almost all owners report that their tenants have far better lifestyles than they do and all owners are hoping against hope that someday they will show some profit.

I suppose some people can be forgiven for believing that there are heaps of people making a killing out of real estate, because Today Tonight told them so.

I just refer to readers to the following quote: (the relevant part is in the second paragraph)

In its report, “Levels, patterns and trends of Australian household saving,” the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) found that in June 2002, the top 20 percent of households owned more than half the total household wealth. Their average worth was $772,000, more than 40 times higher than the poorest 20 percent—whose estimated average assets were only $18,000—and more than double the wealth of the second most affluent 20 percent.

Significantly, the wealthiest group owned almost 90 percent of all shares and 66 percent of rental properties.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/gap-n21.shtml

Tristan

tristan, these people should get out of the city. I could make an extra $20k a year if I moved to Sydney. That would be gobbled up straight away in housing costs even if I lived in the outer suburbs. Then there is the cost of getting to work, not to mention the tensions that come from being so close to so many people (heck I like my space ok). Life isnt fair. Sometimes you cant live where you want or do what you want. I am one of these people. I cant afford to go and do what I want to do (which will entail slashing my pay by a third). So I do what I have to to get by. If I can do, so can anyone else.

Tristan

I can see why the World Socialist Website quotes that report which was commissioned by the financial planning industry and was controversial, largely because of the misinterpretations by the media and others. You see the survey included as part of a person’s wealth the estimated sale price of their home as though it were available for spending.

Predictably people aged 45 – 65 years, who had houses in inner city areas and were at the (momentary) peak of their earnings and asset accumulation were seen as ‘wealthy’ individuals. These were people the investment advice industry was targeting and hence the sponsored review by NARSEM.

But just stop for a moment and think, it is reasonable and normal that older people just prior to retirement would be better off in the main than younger people: their children have flown the nest and they are finally able to save; their (now) inner city homes are almost paid off and are higher valued (but they don't want to sell so that just ends up costing them more rates); their super is being added to and their spending on material things is down while retirement is impending.

So the picture of 'wealthy' people holding all of that real estate is not really true, is it? Anyhow, within several years of retirement old people are typically caused to shed property apart from their homes to support themselves. After all there is the income/assets test. Not much later they end up selling their homes to support themselves too.

You must be aware of grannies do you know who are accused of being asset rich (and income poor) because they are still living in the house where their children were born and raised. What are they to do?

Reports such as the one quoted distort the facts. The subject report has been used by the unethical (or uninformed) to sledge older people for having saved to be self-sufficient in their retirement.

Intergenerational jealousy is a great way to divide and conquer.

Move outwards where you can afford to buy.

Who is ridiculing the aging population for owning their homes? Nobody is unless they are foolish. As for 'move further out for cheaper homes'...where? There is no such place that exists. Three years ago, yes but not now.

Look at reports coming in from charity groups who say that more and more people are defaulting on rents solely because the costs of living is outstripping 'real wages'. South East Queensland is witnessing young families living in tents - wealthy bums. Why? Because of a shortage of housing and a growing rate of people unable to afford rents.

They also say that the first home buyer is increasingly being pushed out of the market. These statistics are not coming from Marxist(etc) organisations but church charities and such.

There are certain people who buy up home after home after home. I once rented a house of a fella who rented out 20 homes. As more and more people are pushed out of the market, society becomes feudalist.

Spider – Your last post.

I would have thought someone equipped with all these policies and things which are being, to use your worlds “formulated world wide” would have had a response re

What is an essential service?
Intergenerational conflict as it contributes to the problem of street kids?
Published views on commercial regulation and corporate ownership?
Solution you offer to deal with the problem of attracting investment into the rental market?
A reference source for the policy and manifesto statements of the organization which has “formulated world wide plans”.

Instead your last post simply reiterated some problems. No suggestions, no creative ideas.

It is pretty straight forward for anyone to identify a problem, I do it every day. I then focus on developing a solution.

From what I see, no one is being “pushed out of the market” what I do see however, is a lot of people who, as a matter of personal choice, decide not to save for a mortgage.

What we choose for ourselves is what country gal has done.
She looked at her circumstances and decided how she wants to deal with them. She did not ask for special consideration or for other people’s choices to be regulated or curtailed to suit her. She just got on and sorted out her plans and all credit to her.

I would still appreciate insight into the questions I asked originally and relisted above.

Cornflower

WSWS is merely a front for diehard Trotskyites. The fringe loons that even Stalin recognized as totally impractical and incapable of running a nose let alone a community (that is why he had Trotsky hunted down and ice-picked). Following in Trotsky’s dogma of eternal revolution they attract the impotent and incompetent by pandering to the envy inherent in the small minded toward the gifted with faux promises authority under the state for their pledge of fraternal support (aka “selling ones soul to the devil”).

Using such a site as a reference source displays either complete naivety in the extreme, verging on the stupid, or the desperation which results from moral bankruptcy.

Spider, you wrote:

>>Look at Perth about to become more expensive than Sydney<<

It may help us to understand the problem a little more if you gave us your explanation of how this has come about?

Perth is after all the most remote State capital, and has traditionally lagged the Eastern States in its house prices, yet suddenly the papers are full of "Perth's Real Estate Boom!"

Why is this so? What government policy has been at work here to create this situation? What iniquities of the capitalist running dog stooge lackey faction are creating this disaster?

Or is it, perhaps, the normal functioning of an open market, and a classic example of the laws of supply and demand operating smoothly?

Because if your problem is basic economics at work, then I have to tell you that it will be a significant influence in any society in which you find yourself, or even one that you dream up for yourself.

Col Rougue: you may call WSWS 'fringe Trotskyists' - and I am myself amazed what a good job they do maintaining their website - but I don't think you can call NATSEM that, and that is who is being quoted.

Tristan “WSWS 'fringe Trotskyists' - and I am myself amazed what a good job they do maintaining their website“

Oh you are right Tristan, I have noticed it too. It often seems easier to find to left leaning web site than an honest one.

Having received a dole cheque through the mail, the avid socialist devotes his day to writing out the rules for society which he has dreamed up to inflict upon other people, inventing quotas and regulations to ensure no one achieves more than the mediocre and embellishing his website, his own “domain” on the internet.

Whilst the avid socialist is dreaming up all that stuff, those of the right are out there building businesses, running the world, profiting from the internet and ensuring someone is paying the taxes from which the socialist’s dole cheques are drawn against.

Reality is, with all that going on the “right” do not have time to build pipedream web page empires.

Although my business partner does a fabulous job on ours, he has that “design flair.
My business site opens with a flash presentation (a very “flash“ flash presentation) but it is all commercial, not political.

In comparison, the offerings of the WSWS is banal, bland and reflective of the utilitarianist mediocrity which is their hallmark.
The trots have tried “entryism” into Labour in the 1970’s. They have done the same to the green movement and might have had their biggest success in getting some of this global warming rubbish into debate but, ultimately, lacking the real vision and imagination necessary to move things forward, they will fall by the wayside to go unnoticed in a changing world.

Cornflower has already answered your other point, surveys can only be read in conjunction with the questions and the nature of the population which was asked.

Spiders absence of response on the source of the “fascist policies“ which are being decided upon around the world but which he has decided are too precious for mere mortals and tax payers to be party to, is noted.

Come on Spider, why so secret? Afraid of debate?

Col - you conveniently avoid the question of whether or not NATSEM can be so readily dismissed as 'fringe Trotsyists'.

We often forget that the first home buyers grant was introduced by a federal government prior to an election to stimulate the housing sector by providing jobs in the building industry so the Australian economy would not slump into recession / depression.

Like the last Reserve Bank Governor I wonder where all the home buyers are going to come from when unemployment rises and the level of household income falls as the Industrial Relations laws start to bite.

Spider clearly house prices are going to fall, especially in Perth now that the resources boom has peaked and eastern states investors are starting to get burned.

Spider in the 1990s average house prices in the LaTrobe Valley in Victoria dropped from $120,000 to $30,000 as the State Electricity Commission was privatised

If you want a relatively cheap house, come out west of the divide. Yes people, there is life beyond the coastal fringe! You can buy a "first" house in a number of reasonably-sized country towns from $75000 - $200,000. Larger regional centres of course will cost more. If you are willing to commute an hour in the city, you can even choose to live in a small village and drive 100kms to work (an hour in the country). Housing prices are then cheaper again. Given that a large number of profesional and semi-professional services can now be done at least partially by telecommute, this will free up a lot of people from being chained to the city CBD. You can even build your dream home on 100 acres for around $500,000. From what I can gather, this will only get you a mediocre house in the inner city. To me the numbers speak for themselves.

If you want an example of a socialist style government subsidy of industry, what better example is there than the property development sector? Without massive immigration (How many Australians want this?) how could these developers sell their shoddy pokey rubbish at all. Instead, thanks to government largesse with immigration and a conveniently slow approval process, they sell this junk for big profits. And just for good measure, in the good spirit of socialism,the entire taxpaying community bears the huge cost of infrastructure to support the extra people, and the country suffers environmental degradation to boot.

For me, the dream of a socialist utopia was shattered decades ago, and its victims still bear the brunt of a degraded environment and a frugal existence. Hopefully this experiment in socialist style government support of the property development industry will end before Australia follows this path much further.

Col, there is no fear of debate. Why would one put forth policies when they aren't fully formulated yet? That is just silly which I presume you have the intelligence to understand. However, if you want an incite of suggestions as policy - a cap on how many houses one can own...with the taking back of essential infrastructure(not retail, that was a silly comment), only Australian citizens living here to paid for the return of these assets.

Scrapping of '457' immigration laws, returning jobs to locals, legislating the role of the union movement...globalisation abandoned and only certain multinational firms to be encouraged to stay such as McDonalds as they train youth and put a lot into the community.

National Security; most importance on drugs and child abuse and sexual abuse. A focus on the people, not the government which would open the door to politicians being imprisoned for Sedition, not comedians for making a joke.

Spider “Why would one put forth policies when they aren't fully formulated yet?’

Then why would you allude to such things in this forum?

I recall your original statements –

I quote you of Sat 4 November “Col, fascist policy overall where homeless are housed, educated and trained. Policy of industry and commerce which would stop destructive globalism. Housing for all people, not just rich.”

You have still to come clean on exactly what policies you are referring to, be they partially formulated or not.
You have also avoided identifying the organisation which is formulating these “policies”. I for one might have something to offer in the deliberation process and as a tax paying voter, I feel entitled to have my voice heard.
How do you intend to implement these policies when the electorate see how poorly they have been “formulated” and you fail at the ballot box?

I cannot be heard by an organisation which is “formulation” policies which may possibly effect my life if it remains unidentified and secret.

My only assumption is a “fascist” organisation would see my rights removed for the benefit of the state, similar to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews or the treatment of black voters by the klu klux klan.

I am left to assume that you represent such interests. The klu klux klan were too scared to show their faces, hiding behind masks, like you are hiding the identity of your “policy making organisation”.

Some have labelled me a libertarian, I have no problem with that label.

It means, you are free to make your mistakes and I am free to make mine. I cherish the right to make my own mistakes and I will resist with everything I can muster to ensure no “fascist” or “communist” policies are ever inflicted on me, my family, my friends or people in general.

So Spider, either answer the question –
What policies?
Which organisation?

So I can challenge them or

be seen as a cowardly fascists who relies on the violence of the mob to crush individuals under foot.

As a bloke who wants to vote for you, you realy worry me if your philosophy on home ownership is this.

With an aggressive lending market, times have never been easier to get finance to buy a property. you can borrow 106% with not a dollar down and full costs paid for you with several lenders. It comes down to 2 things:

1. People must take a step back from the consumer society and be content to start in smaller, more affordable dwellings, and

2. People must be extremely savvy when purchasing a property and it should be the responsibility of the government to ensure people understand property and thererefore are more savvy when buying.

And booms are great things. Equity can free homeowners from a life on the cusp, and allow them to reinvest in both investment housing to support the renting population and grow wealth, and other items which help drive the economy's growth.

There is no dark side of the boom. The majority of people purchased before the peak of the boom and for the others, i know quite a few who have bought in the last 2 years who have done well from smart buying, and from starting modestly, not at their maximum borrowing capacity.

Home ownership and property growth is the core wealth creator for Australians.

Winning votes from people, alot being generation (Y) who winge about the current situation due to their ignorance is poor. That is where your government can come in, educating via schools the facets of property and finance, as this is one of life's biggest decisions. Its puzzling why we are completely on our own often with no knowledgewhen making this decision. it is the way most of us become financially secure, yet it is completely ignored in our schools. Go figure.

Please rethink your strategy, we want to vote for you but you frighten us with what you would do if you were in the hotseat with your current spruik.

There is no dishonesty Col. Sure, there is elements of pure fascism of which most people do not have a true understanding of. It's not about dictatorship. It's actually about putting the control of oneself back into their hands and not the governments. This is also Libertarian to use that word.

Name of organisation...when the timing is right, people will put themselves forward, not when the liberalists want it. It is actually the liberalists who are taking away the freedoms, not us. Look at the European Union. This is exactly what Nepolean and Hitler strived for. The EU is the same but without a single shot fired.

I admit to tribalism, I admit to some ideals of anarchy but most of all, I admit to values of freedoms which people are tossing away today.

Realist, it is not about intergenerational jealousy but openly questioning policies that exist today, practices that exist today. This leads to an attack of the Baby Boomers as it is this generation which is the voting block, those who write the laws.

I agree that there is a problem with materialism. I personally only believe in taking and using what you need. I will admit to not being heavily involved with this now. I have withdrawn a fair bit and more taken a back seat as I have other things to do which must take priority.

Looking past the hysterical propaganda, it is the current of elites that are rapidly removing freedoms, liberties and more. Who would have thought Australia fought in two world wars and more just so governments would make it illegal for a comedian to poke fun at them?

Did anyone miss that the recent 10% fall in Sydney house prices was coincident with a drop in the population growth rate?

Let's see if all the sky will fall predictions of economic catastrophe resultant from a stabilising population come to pass. The unfounded alarmism coming from population growth proponents makes global warming groupies look very conservative in comparison.

Spider “I admit to tribalism, I admit to some ideals of anarchy but most of all, I admit to values of freedoms which people are tossing away today.”

I do not care about “tribalism”. That is a trendy colloquial for “nationalism”, the elitism and exclusivism from which people believe they are better than others and noting it has nothing to do with national sovereignty, which infers “identity” without “exclusivity”.

“Anarchy” is simply an excuse for a fight looking for a problem, it offers no future, only debasement of the present and destruction of the past.
It has as much to contribute to human development as a riot in the stand has to a football game – viz, it is invariably a consequence of the frustration of those who can only watch with the actions of those who do.

“Values of freedom which people are tossing away”.

Despite my requests for more information, you have deliberately evaded identifying what you would propose and what organization you support, you know, the one which is formulating all these policies which you are unable to elaborate on (which would suggest, by definition, it cannot be a genuine “anarchist” cause).

“Values of Freedom” are defended from being “tossed away” by knowing who and what one is dealing with. Your evasiveness leads me to the one and only conclusion, that you have no respect for the “freedoms” of others to accept or reject, through the ballot box, you and your organizations “formulated policies”.

Realist, I agree with all you said. Personal Finance is not taught in schools, although the following might offer some help for those interested in finding out more

http://www.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byheadline/Money+management?openDocument

Fester “10% fall in Sydney.”
As well as any migrationary effect, maybe the recent hikes in interest rates are proving that the “affordability equation still works.

If you increase and cost of money (interest) by 10% (in round terms, half percent from 5% to 5 ½ %), with incomes remaining constant, prices will drop accordingly (expect some lag, the reaction is never immediate).

Settle Col. You are intelligent enough to know to understand that coming forth when the timing is right is about not allowing the social elite from doing what they can to destroy anything that opposes them. We have seen how people and political parties becomes entwined into a court battle by the corrupt politicians of today, even being wrongly imprisoned.

Freedom? Howard has illegalised making fun of governments and Beazley wants to control the internet similar to how China does. This is appaulling yet people seem happy to be brainwashed into thinking that by giving up your rights, you are freer. Well, you're not. People must be able to say what they think freely, free from political persecution...something which we are seeing today is persecution. The closer Australia is with China, more we become like them.

Nationalism to you is about race? What an example of brainwashing! If it is being racist to look after your own nation first before those from overseas who don't care about you, then so be it - Proud of it!

col

The interest rate hikes are having varying effects across Australia. The reduction in the rate of immigration into Sydney is reducing demand. Why else do you think people like Harry Triguboff want twenty million people living in Sydney by 2050? To make housing more affordable perhaps?

Spider “understand that coming forth when the timing is right is about not allowing the social elite from doing what they can to destroy anything that opposes them.”

I guess my great-great-great-great-grandchildren might get to see them then?

Spider, from your posts I can only assume you represent the manana party (as in the song).

In the meant time, the rest of us will just get on with life, lacking the benefit of your illuminating policies.

China, I figure, despite your warnings, we will never become as authoritarian as China, which has come so far in the past 15 years (or so) from where it was under the repressive and stagnant Maoists.

The thing with China is, it appears to take things very slowly. On balance such a conservative approach to civil liberties might be better than the path which transpired in Russia. (The fable about the tortoise and the hare flash before me).

Fester – I have not a clue who “Harry Triguboff” is. I was commenting on the observed reality of the “affordability calculation” on house prices.

Migration policy will effect the “demand” side of the calculation, likewise, as Rex brought up, so too bank lending policies as well as land reservation strategies of government and building codes and employment rates etc.

Someone commented previous about the hike in Perth prices – well, did that person bother to ask if people are earning more than they were a few years ago because of the resources boom in WA?

Affordability has been, for decades, around 30% of gross income, give or take 10% (=3% on a base of 30%).
Because the business of buying and selling a house is not undertaken as quickly as the RBA can change official interest rates, allow a lag of around 6 months after an interest rate rise before its effects are reflected in house prices.

The danger I see in the current trend in interest rates is, the higher they go, the closer we come to having an interest rate lead collapse in consumer confidence and thus, a recession