12 Responses to “Labor’s Record On Housing Affordability: What They Said Versus What They Did”

  1. kelly liddle February 18, 2013 at 2:56 am #

    Good to see you are back. Hope you enjoyed whatever when you took your break.

  2. Saul Eslake February 18, 2013 at 6:08 am #

    This would of course be the same Saul Eslake that you’ve repeatedly derided in the most personal of terms on this site on earlier occasions?

    • The Blissful Ignoramus February 18, 2013 at 7:54 am #

      For leading a bankers’ glee club publicly singing in favour of the carbon derivatives scam. Credit where it is due, Mr Eslake … in this case, your statement was laudable, and the government’s ignoring of it deplorable.

      • Saul Eslake February 19, 2013 at 8:52 pm #


    • JMD February 18, 2013 at 10:15 am #

      While Mr Eslake can be given credit for stating the obvious in that “anything which puts additional cash in the hands of buyers…results merely in more expensive houses” I wouldn’t go so far as to call his analysis expert when he trots out the “policy needs to focus on increasing the supply of housing” mantra.

      What has happened to the supply of housing over the last couple of decades? I’ll wager 100 ounces of silver the supply of housing has increased dramatically, yet housing ‘values’ have increased dramatically. It doesn’t take rocket science to see that housing values bear no correlation to the supply of housing.

      • JMD February 18, 2013 at 10:18 am #

        bear no correlation to the supply of housing in the typical demand/supply argument.

  3. Tomorrows Serf February 18, 2013 at 6:19 am #

    “Heaven help us when they(interest rates) rise”… I shudder to think what the Aussie property market will look like when that day arrives.

    Mortgage stress was bad 2 years ago, but with the recent reprieve in rates, the pressure seems to have been relieved for many. (temporarily)

    I suspect the Aussie Dream is about to become the Aussie Nightmare..

  4. Richo February 18, 2013 at 11:33 am #

    The first home savers account is a joke. First of all, like many government initiatives it is badly promoted. I consider myself money savvy but I only found about it a few months ago when the scheme has been in operation for years, I suspect many others are in the same boat. Furthermore you have to have the money in there for at least 4 years, meaning you really have to plan long term.
    The four year rule is the major gripe of a lot of people judging by this poll
    If you decide to buy a home before the 4 years is up, the money goes into your super and we of course know what happens to it after that.
    On the broader issue of housing affordability, I think you could also do a piece on the NSW government’s decision to gear their incentives for first home buyers exclusively for new dwellings. My understanding ( I don’t have any figures) is that first home buyers are shunning this scheme in droves.

    • The Blissful Ignoramus February 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm #

      First home buyers are waking up. More will too, thanks to the example of folks like Jessica Irvine (see yesterday’s post).

  5. Dan February 18, 2013 at 1:28 pm #

    id like to see any party scrap negative gearing, that would start having a affect. But gov must do everything can do keep credit expanding, thanks to our awesome monetary system. /sarc

  6. JMD February 18, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

    A few headlines from today. What crisis? Before long we won’t be able to afford anything!;

    Aust stocks close stronger; hit 4-year high

    Cost of funding for banks is falling: Hirst

    Tokyo shares close up 2.09 per cent

    Amcor shares hit record high after jump in H1 profit

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: