Sometimes, the honesty displayed here is breathtaking.

Today's example, courtesy of foleo:

>>Could be right, for all I know, but really, who cares? Its beside the point.<<

Yup. When you have a point of view that you desperately want to believe, whether an opposing view is right or wrong is totally beside the point.

Such clarity. Such honesty. It's a shame that more people don't preface their views with the same open declaration.

But sometimes these conversations get very confusing.

>>Pericles, I'm sorry Australia is losing the plot (even more than USA) with working longer hours.<<

Eh Constance?

Why choose me as the target of your apology? I don't recall suggesting that Australia has lost the plot on anything. But perhaps I talk in my sleep. (oops. Our little secret is out...)

Incidentally, I find your proposals far-fetched in the extreme. Bordering on fantasy, even.

>>An 18 year old leaving home would be allotted a piece of land as first home builders grant. Thats right, a direct land grant with no greedy corrupt developers involved. He would then apply for a no interest loan or at cost loan from the government bank, to build an independant off the grid eco house. Once this 18 year old has built his house he has freehold title that can never be taken from him, thats his home for life if he so wishes.<<

"He" Constance?

Only blokes? Surely not?

And out of interest, where would these houses be built? Close to "his" workplace, I trust.

And your financing proposal needs a little work. There are no interest payments, you mentioned that. But what about the principal - does that have to be repaid? What if "he" can't. since "his" house is so far from "his" work that "he" can't afford the repayments? Will you repossess the house? If so, what happens to "his" "freehold title that can never be taken from him"?

I know, I know, these are trivial little details that someone somewhere will iron out, and I'm just nitpicking.

What is it about housing that brings out all these fantasies?

Constance "Not Capitalism Not Communism

Distributism is the third way, and it is proven to work.
Distributism puts both property and the means of production into the hands of the majority.”

Ah ownership by the proletariat!

who appoints the representatives committee?

What you promote is “Communism” and “Collectivism” , repackaged under another name.

Proving, once again what dearest Margaret observed

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

Even the Kibbutz system in Israel is being abandoned .

So, not to dwell on names, I have some practical questions for Constance:

How does this land bank acquire the land to distribute? What happens to land already owned by private individuals?

How does the land-bank get administered – by public servants appointed by government (communistic) or private appointed staff (capitalistic)

What happens when the beneficiary of the land parcel wants to relocate?

Does he:

Sell the land (capitalistic), lose the land (communistic) apply to swap?

If he applies to “swap”, what happens if his original land was in say Tasmania and he wants to swap with one in say the Gold Coast… more demand for Gold Coast and none for Tassie…. How does the “perceived value differential” get resolved?

What happens if the beneficiary of the land parcel dies?
Do the children he has brought into the world inherit the land?

Do they surrender it and if they do – where do they live until they qualify for their own little parcels?

“We need more time for ourselves for outside work productivity, and live the broader picture that life has to offer, don't we?”

I suggest you read Maslow

Some of us have made that choice progressively through our lives, without the intervention of government or regulation..
I am quite happy with mine and I doubt government could do better … because I know what is best for myself.

Pericles “What is it about housing that brings out all these fantasies?”

Too much pot and too many pills?

Now I'm not a capitalist by any means, a satirist perhaps, but not a capitlalist, however one thing is clear to me.

It is only relatively recently that the idea of owning a house has been thought of as a right. In many countries renting is considered normal.

The idea that we all have to be able to afford a house is what is driving people to get mortgages they can't afford. This is not reality, it is a wish.

If you can't afford it, don't try. Rent instead, or live further out from the city. If enough people can't afford houses there will be a drop in the price. Our own insistence on a house 'right now' is what pushes up prices.

I find myself agreeing woth Runner on this one. Perhaps people need to start off renting in small flats instead of trying to jump straight into a nice house in the suburbs. Also, parents who help out with their kids first house are only making the worse as they hide the true cost and effort needed to achieve your own home.

Interestingly, Phil Matimein, your point is well supported by the graph provided in the article itself.

>>If you can't afford it, don't try. Rent instead<<

The image "Real House Prices and Fundamentals", shows that whereas the index for "Real House Prices" now stands at 250 (100 = Average 1972-75), "Real Rents" are way down there at 112.

"Real Income", meanwhile, is around the 140 mark.

So your real income has risen three times as fast as the real cost of your rent. How's that for a good deal?

It is also clear that house prices have risen twelve times faster than the rental return, so nobody in their right minds would possibly consider buying a house and renting it out.

Aren't we lucky that there are still some people so unselfish, that they are still prepared to make that sacrifice?

Either that, or the graph is as big a crock as the rest of the article. I really can't be arsed to find out which it is.

Pericles, well said, they all think landlords make a killing.

Fact is, there is down time. Each time a tenent vacates another is sought. This can take days, weeks, even months at times. Lost income!

Then there is the agents letting fee. = to one weeks rent.

The checks that have to be done, fire safety, floor coverings, hazzards. All cost money.

Rates, in Brisbane outer about $2400 a year.

Agents fees.

Insurance.

Landlord insurance.

Excess water rates

So, of your $300 per week, we net just over $200 a week and, that's assumming we have a tenant for 52 weeks of the year.

So, if you think this is for you, then buy a peoperty and rent it out. Otherwise, just keep spending your savings and paying your rent.

Remember. Nobody, other than yourself, decides what you spend your money on. It is all about the sacrafices you are prepared to make and the choices you make, and that's it!

NOT OUR GRAPH

The graph at the end of the article can be found at http://www.rba.gov.au/Speeches/2008/_Images/270308_so_graph1.gif and was presented in a speech (http://www.rba.gov.au/Speeches/2008/sp_so_270308.html) by Anthony Richards, Head of Economic Analysis at the RBA. On Sep.15, I posted a link to the graph (not the graph itself) on an email list. I'm the director of the LVRG (http://www.lvrg.org.au/). My immediate predecessor in that role is Bryan Kavanagh. As the email from me was passed around, someone may have jumped to the conclusion that the graph had something to do with the LVRG. This may explain why the article attributes the graph to "Kavanagh (2009)" with a link to the LVRG website. Sorry - it wasn't us; it was the RBA!