<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Warning: get off housing gravy train &#8211; ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://twasink.net/blog/2009/07/warning-get-off-housing-gravy-train-abc-news-australian-broadcasting-corporation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://twasink.net/blog/2009/07/warning-get-off-housing-gravy-train-abc-news-australian-broadcasting-corporation/</link>
	<description>Robert's Rambling Ruminations Regarding Reality</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:02:46 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Steven Shaw</title>
		<link>http://twasink.net/blog/2009/07/warning-get-off-housing-gravy-train-abc-news-australian-broadcasting-corporation/comment-page-1/#comment-819</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Shaw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twasink.net/blog/?p=666#comment-819</guid>
		<description>We already have a big stinker of a house price bubble here in Australia. Something that started since at least the late 1990s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We already have a big stinker of a house price bubble here in Australia. Something that started since at least the late 1990s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://twasink.net/blog/2009/07/warning-get-off-housing-gravy-train-abc-news-australian-broadcasting-corporation/comment-page-1/#comment-806</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:27:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twasink.net/blog/?p=666#comment-806</guid>
		<description>Local councils want their cut, of course, and why not? I can state with a high degree of confidence that new house prices would still be as high as they are if the councils gave the land away - the developers charge what the market can bear. If councils charged less, you still wouldn&#039;t see development proposals for low-income housing - there&#039;s less profit. This is an area where the free market fails. While prices for established homes are high, prices for new homes will be high.

As for the banks - the problem isn&#039;t the equity/loan ratio. It&#039;s the income/loan ratio. The banks are deliberately enticing people to take out loans that the borrowers won&#039;t be able to sustain when interest rates go up. This is what&#039;s caused the crisis in the &lt;em&gt;prime&lt;/em&gt; market in the US. The free-market&#039;s solution to this? Foreclose the loan, sell the house, take what&#039;s owed, and kick the family to the street. Property market depressed so you can&#039;t sell for enough to cover the loan? Well, that&#039;s where it&#039;s handy to own the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30services.html?_r=1&amp;bl=&amp;ei=5087&amp;en=7d0839845baa733a&amp;ex=1249358400&amp;pagewanted=all&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;mortgage processor&lt;/a&gt; as well. Heck - drag the process out anyway; the fees add up.

As far as I&#039;m concerned, let the banks go bust. Spend &quot;bailout&quot; funds cushioning the blow - for example, by buying and servicing the contracts, not the business. That way, the US wouldn&#039;t be seeing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/31pay.html?bl&amp;ex=1249358400&amp;en=7d0839845baa733a&amp;ei=5087%0A&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;the companies they bailed out paying multi-million dollar bonuses to their executives&lt;/a&gt; for the last financial year.

There is no free-market solution to low-income or first-home-owner housing; it&#039;s an area that requires government intervention to stop the money flowing to the rich, because the consequences of allowing that are too high. The family home is the only significant asset most families ever have - but nearly a third of all households, at current projections, won&#039;t even have that when they hit retirement age. That means that their superannuation will get eaten up by rent - hastening the day that they become fully reliant on government support.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Local councils want their cut, of course, and why not? I can state with a high degree of confidence that new house prices would still be as high as they are if the councils gave the land away &#8211; the developers charge what the market can bear. If councils charged less, you still wouldn&#8217;t see development proposals for low-income housing &#8211; there&#8217;s less profit. This is an area where the free market fails. While prices for established homes are high, prices for new homes will be high.</p>
<p>As for the banks &#8211; the problem isn&#8217;t the equity/loan ratio. It&#8217;s the income/loan ratio. The banks are deliberately enticing people to take out loans that the borrowers won&#8217;t be able to sustain when interest rates go up. This is what&#8217;s caused the crisis in the <em>prime</em> market in the US. The free-market&#8217;s solution to this? Foreclose the loan, sell the house, take what&#8217;s owed, and kick the family to the street. Property market depressed so you can&#8217;t sell for enough to cover the loan? Well, that&#8217;s where it&#8217;s handy to own the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30services.html?_r=1&amp;bl=&amp;ei=5087&amp;en=7d0839845baa733a&amp;ex=1249358400&amp;pagewanted=all" rel="nofollow">mortgage processor</a> as well. Heck &#8211; drag the process out anyway; the fees add up.</p>
<p>As far as I&#8217;m concerned, let the banks go bust. Spend &#8220;bailout&#8221; funds cushioning the blow &#8211; for example, by buying and servicing the contracts, not the business. That way, the US wouldn&#8217;t be seeing <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/business/31pay.html?bl&amp;ex=1249358400&amp;en=7d0839845baa733a&amp;ei=5087%0A" rel="nofollow">the companies they bailed out paying multi-million dollar bonuses to their executives</a> for the last financial year.</p>
<p>There is no free-market solution to low-income or first-home-owner housing; it&#8217;s an area that requires government intervention to stop the money flowing to the rich, because the consequences of allowing that are too high. The family home is the only significant asset most families ever have &#8211; but nearly a third of all households, at current projections, won&#8217;t even have that when they hit retirement age. That means that their superannuation will get eaten up by rent &#8211; hastening the day that they become fully reliant on government support.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://twasink.net/blog/2009/07/warning-get-off-housing-gravy-train-abc-news-australian-broadcasting-corporation/comment-page-1/#comment-803</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:19:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twasink.net/blog/?p=666#comment-803</guid>
		<description>A root cause for all of this is that local councils are hell bent on making it as expensive as possible for new land and houses to be created. All but the most ambitious projects -- those with enough volume to make it worthwhile -- are priced out of the market.

This means that the budget end of the market is extremely tight (to both rent and buy) since there is very little to choose from.

Your points would become moot if councils simply reduced contributions charges (you&#039;d be surprised at how significant they are) so that more land and houses can be created, and (therefore) sold/rented for less.

As for the &#039;bank&#039; problem: other countries have similar lending criteria, and don&#039;t have these issues. Certainly 90%-100%+ LVR loans are pretty ludicrous, but I suspect that (FHOs aside) those are the exception rather than the norm. Regulating the retail end isn&#039;t the solution and is an ugly kludge that restricts banks&#039; ability to bring new products to the market.

Perhaps higher equity reserve requirements for banks (thereby reducing the chance of them going bust and destroying the economy), and leaving them determine their own risk profile would be the simplest (and almost free-market) solution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A root cause for all of this is that local councils are hell bent on making it as expensive as possible for new land and houses to be created. All but the most ambitious projects &#8212; those with enough volume to make it worthwhile &#8212; are priced out of the market.</p>
<p>This means that the budget end of the market is extremely tight (to both rent and buy) since there is very little to choose from.</p>
<p>Your points would become moot if councils simply reduced contributions charges (you&#8217;d be surprised at how significant they are) so that more land and houses can be created, and (therefore) sold/rented for less.</p>
<p>As for the &#8216;bank&#8217; problem: other countries have similar lending criteria, and don&#8217;t have these issues. Certainly 90%-100%+ LVR loans are pretty ludicrous, but I suspect that (FHOs aside) those are the exception rather than the norm. Regulating the retail end isn&#8217;t the solution and is an ugly kludge that restricts banks&#8217; ability to bring new products to the market.</p>
<p>Perhaps higher equity reserve requirements for banks (thereby reducing the chance of them going bust and destroying the economy), and leaving them determine their own risk profile would be the simplest (and almost free-market) solution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://twasink.net/blog/2009/07/warning-get-off-housing-gravy-train-abc-news-australian-broadcasting-corporation/comment-page-1/#comment-798</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twasink.net/blog/?p=666#comment-798</guid>
		<description>Heh - just noticed that the post id for this was &#039;666&#039;... ;) Should have thrown in a &lt;a href=&quot;http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=666&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;spontaneous metal interlude&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh &#8211; just noticed that the post id for this was &#8216;666&#8242;&#8230; ;) Should have thrown in a <a href="http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=666" rel="nofollow">spontaneous metal interlude</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
