Cheers Daggett.

Thanls for the Steve Keen url. I always have time for Prof. Keen. I wasn’t previously aware of this article so I am glad that you brought it to my attention.

Regarding my previous post, the complete quote from the last url, (in The Australan) read:
“much would depend upon how much Western Australia's market had been driven by speculators.
Investors have been flocking to the Perth property market, which gained 40 per cent in price last year and about 80 per cent over the past three years.
In the year to September, lending to property investors in Western Australia soared 54 per cent to $10.1 billion.”

This provides some insight into the motives & perspectives involved in this debate.

The term “flocking” in this quote refers to investors from the eastern states & other locations.
For those that are concerned about productive investment, debt & affordability, that flock could just as easily be characterised as a swarm of locusts that, having sapped the life out of Sydney & other markets has moved on to its next target.

From the well-established Perth landlord’s point of view that flock may as well be the flock of geese that laid the golden eggs, almost magically transforming the “value” of their passive investments.

One can easily see why some of those landlords may be disinclined to hear any criticism

- Mr Smith

Yab,

Re. your previous post

Some of us here are concerned with the interests of all Australians.
The fact that some of those in the highest income category may be manifestly fertile enough to qualify as “mums & dads” seems immaterial. Their parental status is no more worthy than anyone else’s.

The Reserve Bank submission’s comments regarding :
very low rental rates of return, capital gains & the property investment seminar industry are clear enough & barely begin to cover their observations on the topic of speculation.

You can’t rely on a keyword search at that level.

Which reminds me – a word to grputland, billie & various other contributors,
In case you missed it,

The Executive Summary of the Reserve Bank’s submission to
the (2004) Productivity Commission Inquiry on First Home Ownership

is ESSENTIAL READING for anyone interested in this topic (paragraphs 9-26 especially) essential & definitive.
Paragraph 13 for example:

“13. The dominant role played by investors in Australia in the current cycle is the result of interaction between:

* the desire of investors to earn capital gains from investing in rental property;

* the ease of obtaining finance to enter this activity; and

* the taxation treatment of investments in residential property.”

http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/SubmissionsToParliamentaryCommittees/productivity_commision_inquiry_on_first_home_ownership.html
________________

Yab,
Re. your comment vis-a-vis:

“I see a difference in this debate, between speculators and investors”.

So do I.

Regarding the interests of long-term landlords looking for a secure investment.
You are already aware (for example that) the OECD found that Australian residential property prices were 52% higher than justified by rental values.
Lower prices that are consistent with rental values better suit the interests of prospective long-term investors as well as first-home buyers & the broader economy.

- Mr Smith

Now, back to the cricket

Mr Smith,

If you were to e-mail Steve Keen at S-dot-Keen{AT}uws-dot-edu-dot-au, I am sure he would be happy to send you his regular newsletter.

His web pages are: http://www.debunkingeconomics.com http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs

Smithy, to clear up one point, I am not a landlord, nor do I use negative gearing
to buy houses. I don’t even own a single house in Perth. But I know lots of
people who do, very normal, average people, who have worked hard all their lives.

Yes, property seminars attracted the true believers, like those flocking to religious
meetings or to the old pyramid marketing schemes. Promoters would try to flog
them apartments, then interest rates went up, some property markets down, they
learnt the hard way, as true believers do. In the present bubble market, chances
are high that the same thing will happen. My nephew in Perth actually gets to benefit
from all of this. He can rent a house for 200$ a week, split it with another tenant,
so rent costs him the grand total of 100$ a week, whilst he makes good money in
the mining industry.

Yes Perth prices have shot up, mainly in the yuppy suburbs, close to the CBD or
the beach. Perth has less of a shortage of land problem like Sydney has, more a lack
of tradesmen to build new homes, due to the booming economy. Perhaps we should
try and pinch a few more of those from Sydney :)

Daggett, unlike you, I post and discuss my philosophies purely for enjoyment.
If my posts get you so hot under the collar, why don’t you take the advice that
you gave others and ignore them.

My politics are very mainstream, a mix of both labour and liberal points of
view, depending on the issue. That’s similar to well over 90% of the Australian
public. Your extreme left wing political viewpoint was voted for by how
many of the Australian public? You are clearly a lonely fellow out there.

If the South Australian housing scheme was the answer to everything, why did
the voting South Australian public, not insist on its retention and turf out any
Govt that tried to remove it?

80% of Cubans have more what can be considered shacks rather then houses

80% of Cubans live in shacks? Where do you get that from? I gathered it was largely apartment blocks, pretty much all with electricty and running water. Though I certainly agree that a good percentage of them are in a condition that few Australians would be keen to live in.

Yabby,

As I wrote earlier, "... if you fail to respond adequately, I think other forum users will be entitled to conclude that you are avoiding making direct responses to my clear points ..."

---

Yabby wrote, "Unlike you, I post and discuss my philosophies purely for enjoyment."

Could you, perhaps, appreciate that some of us, such as OZZYRENTER from WA ("They're not really that poor" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6576#98116), those single mothers I referred to above who only wanted "a place to call home" for Christmas or those hundreds of families "forced to live in their cars" on the Sunshine Coast, may not be able share in your enjoyment, even if they were all somehow able to get access to the Internet and join in?

I have no idea what your own personal stake in maintaining the grossly unjust, costly and inefficient privatised Australian housing system is, but I, nevertheless, believe you are consciously abusing your account on this forum in order to prevent others from learning the truth of it.

---

Yabby wrote, "My politics are very mainstream, a mix of both labour and liberal...".

Perhaps you would care to tell us exactly which 'labour' policies you support which did not originate from the Chicago School of Economics, and which were not first imposed on the people of South America by murderous military dictators(1)? Just because some past Labor leaders have, unforunately, embraced these extreme policies, does nott make these policies any less extreme.

It's easy to dismiss my own views as "extreme left wing", much harder to argue why they are wrong.

---

You clearly don't want to appear to have understood my earlier points. The reason that public housing programs such as the Housing Trust of South Australia were wound back was because the powerful private property interests have lobbied behind closed doors to bring this about. They were never wound back as a result of an open democratic consensus having been arrived at, and we are now reaping the terrible consequences.

---

1. As brilliantly chronicled in Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine", 2007 http://www.naomikline.com/ShockDoctrine http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2204 RRP AU$32.95