Slashdot Mirror


This is Why Australia Hasn't Had a Recession in Over 25 Years (bloomberg.com)

Australia is close to seizing the global crown for the longest streak of economic growth thanks to a mixture of policy guile and outrageous fortune. From a report: While growth is being underpinned by population gains and resource exports to China, failure to spur productivity has meant stagnant living standards and electoral discontent; a property bubble fueled by record-low interest rates has driven household debt to levels that threaten financial stability; and a timid government facing political gridlock could lose the nation's prized AAA rating as early as May because of spiraling budget deficits. Australia's last recession -- defined locally as two straight quarters of contraction -- occurred in 1991 and was a devastating conclusion to eight years of reform designed to create an open, flexible and competitive economy. But it also proved cathartic, paving the way for a low-inflation, productivity-driven expansion. As momentum started waning, China's re-emergence as a pre-eminent global economic power sent demand for Australian resources skyrocketing, helping shield the nation from the worst of the global financial crisis. But the post-crisis return of the boom proved ephemeral, failing to boost government coffers and pushing the local currency higher, eroding competitiveness and driving another nail into the coffin of a fading manufacturing sector.

115 comments

  1. Disjunction between headline and text by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's rather a disjunction between the rah-horray headline and the text, which seems to be about how Australian economy is heading for a major bust. "Failure to spur productivity has meant stagnant living standards and electoral discontent; a property bubble fueled by record-low interest rates has driven household debt to levels that threaten financial stability; and a timid government facing political gridlock could lose the nation’s prized AAA rating as early as May because of spiraling budget deficits."

    The answer to the question posed in the title seems to be "because Australia is close to China, so when the rest of the world economy hit a depression, the Australian economy was buoyed up by the Chinese money."

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The answer to the question posed in the title seems to be "because Australia is close to China, so when the rest of the world economy hit a depression, the Australian economy was buoyed up by the Chinese money."

      Sadly that is the truth combined with Australia didn't have the bank problems of the rest of the world as we had regulations that prevented them from being leveraged to the hilt. Unfortunately even though we were not in any real danger in the GFC the then Labour government decided to use it as a vote buying/popularity exercise and sent the country from surplus into massive debt and overspend, and ever since neither Labour nor liberal governments have been able to rein in the overspending. The housing bubble while definitely overinflated isn't just a low interest thing, it is a market undersupply problem, in some places where supply has caught up (like Melbourne apartments, or Brisbane) we are already seeing an easing, we aren't likely to see a bubble pop unless interest rates massively increase due to the under supply issue.

    2. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Canada had similar regulations on our banking industry - however when oil prices dropped part of the economy slowed. If I recall correctly wasn't Australia buoyed through the down periods by exporting coal?

    3. Re: Disjunction between headline and text by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      If there's an urban land shortage, what's stopping Australia from building a new freeway a kilometer or two inland along the entire east coast from Carins to Sydney, opening up tens of thousands of square kilometers of land for new development in the process?

    4. Re: Disjunction between headline and text by xQx · · Score: 1

      The short answer is water.

      The longer answer is crappy public transport and a general unwillingness for people to commute.

    5. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a very partisan point of view and totally ignores the effect the government stimulus had at the time. It could be argued that the stimulus could have been targeted better, but the focus at the time was on the dissemination of the stimulus as quickly and broadly through the community as possible. The actions of the government of the day during the GFC were widely regarded globally as an example of an economy that had successfully navigated the GFC.

      Comments on property are also naive and ignore the different market segments. Apartments are over represented and it will take not much more than a bump in the road to cause a series of settlement crashes for the large number of high LVR loans which will cascade on to developers and their lenders.

      The banks have already started to limit their exposure to apartment buyers and developers with tougher lending processes already in place for the financing of developments.

    6. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      IMHO Canada is more dependent on energy resources than Australia. We can grow more of our own food and we don't have to import food to survive. Our climate allows food production all year round, and our tropical areas are very productive.

    7. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno... now that people are starting to buy investment property with their superannuations... that sounds pretty darn overhot (and there's got to be a limit eventually to more "greater fools" to do the buying)

    8. Re: Disjunction between headline and text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of Australia is made up of red dust, and flies.

    9. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Canada is easily self sufficient in food, we just have to not export quite as much, though without imports, not as much variety. Our greenhouses do allow food production all year round for fresh veggies in the winter.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      With or without artificial energy input?

    11. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by dwywit · · Score: 1

      We survived the GFC better than most, true, and most schools got major infastructure upgrades (there's good and bad sides to that, but it's another story), but at the end of the surplus, the labor govt didn't stop spending, so we ended up with massive foreign debt again.

      There's a surplus of apartments because developers can't get their hands on land for traditional quarter-acre blocks for housing, and that's because local and state governments won't co-operate to release the land. Councils *are* allowing older large blocks to be re-aligned into two or more small blocks for redevelopment. What used to be the low-stress, spacious 3 or 4 bedroom Queenslander on a quarter-acre block has now become two pokey little places on as little as 600 square meters (about 1/7 acre).

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    12. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Depends on what you call artificial. Some are heated by methane from cow manure and some are heated by wood waste. Most winters there aren't many nights when they need heat here on the wet coast. Without the green houses we can still fall back on the Brassica crops as well as things like apples that keep. Note also that where I am, California is considered local as it's closer then the further parts of the province.
      I'd imagine that much of your food production depends on artificial sources of water.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    13. Re: Disjunction between headline and text by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Why is water a problem between Cairns and Sydney, where the average annual rainfall is around a meter?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    14. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Canada uses mostly hydroelectric and a significant amount of nuclear locally (and has local uranium), along with a scattering of renewables. Fossil fuels were about 22% of Canada's energy sources. Despite Canada having very large oil reserves, hence Canada's export economy being driven by oil prices. Citation: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/...

      I'm less familiar with Australia's energy mix, but this site suggests it's surprisingly dependent on fossils: https://industry.gov.au/Office...

      I'm also not familiar with how much local non-renewables there are in Australia, but I would say based on this that generally Canada seems to have lower dependence on externally-sourced energy resources.

      Canada exports a lot more food than it imports, and basically always has. A significant stat is that Canada has about 0.5% the world population and produces about 1.5% of the world's food.

      Canada in general is an exporter of raw materials. The US is traditionally an exporter of manufactured materials -- they have resources themselves, but mostly not quite as much as Canada except for arable land (but including potable water); they make up for it in ever-increasing manufacturing capacity despite a lot of boo-hooing about the decline of the manufacturing industry.

      The amount of arable land in Canada is not to be underestimated. The high level of freshwater means land can be pretty damn productive even in a shorter growing season.

    15. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Luthair · · Score: 1

      The actions of the government of the day during the GFC were widely regarded globally as an example of an economy that had successfully navigated the GFC.

      Point of order, I'm not sure who you think was doing the wide regarding... but as a normal Canadian who reads a lot, Australia is never mentioned in the context of the financial crisis. The only articles I've ever seen talked about coal exports to China and a couple about that batshit crazy rich lady. Oh, and occasionally someone being eaten by a shark or alligator.

    16. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Luthair · · Score: 1

      As an outsider, it doesn't seem reasonable to blame the party in power. They can't control the global economy or force your trading partners to buy more. More importantly, cutting spending during an economic downturn has been shown to acerbate the problem.

    17. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      It also depends on what you compare it to. Bhutan, for example, hasn't had a recession ever as far as I know.

    18. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Labour spent the money on "economic stimulus" in the wake of the GFC, in much the same way as Obama did in the US. The mining boom has ended and none of "leaders" saw it coming. Unlike Norway that experienced a similar boom from North Sea oil and invested it in infrastructure, education. and health, John Howard pissed ours away on tax cuts for the people in the top tax bracket who didn't need them (people like me). We haven't learnt our lessons, it's now more profitable for natural gas companies to ship gas half way around the word than it is to sell it locally. How fucked up is when local industry are complaining about gas shortages, in a nation that prides itself in being the world's #1 gas exporter? Keating was right, the conservatives ate the golden goose and led us down the path to a "banana republic".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    19. Re: Disjunction between headline and text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And venomous spider, venomous snakes, venomous reptiles and venomous dropbears.

    20. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 0

      What about the socialists and their green energy fubar in South Australia,

      Sounds like they f*cked you more, made you the goose.

    21. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, green energy had nothing to do with South Australian power lines being blown down, as the eventual report said quite clearly.
      And as Aussie politicians were told at the time.
      Some of those Aussie politicians then lied and said that it did.
      They were and are wrong (and liars).

    22. Re:Disjunction between headline and text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really a supply issue when apartments and properties are bought by overseas speculators that leave them empty. There's more than enough housing in Australia but when you allow people that don't live here to take a punt on the market without actually adding to liveable supply then this is what you get.

    23. Re: Disjunction between headline and text by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Because it all falls in one hour on one random day of the year.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  2. Australia is Africa without its history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're mining their natural resources as fast as they can and replacing it with... nothing.

    1. Re:Australia is Africa without its history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia's biggest economy is in natural resources, education and property. Natural resources are the biggest economy but it doesn't mean that Australia has nothing else.

    2. Re:Australia is Africa without its history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Education is just a visa scam. You go to a University over here and, wink wink nudge nudge, you can get a visa to stay for the next 4 years. They're selling you a visa with a requirement to attend a University.

  3. "...pushing the local currency higher" by hwihyw · · Score: 0

    High value currency is what you strive for, not low currency. See Zimbabwe, Argentina, Weimar Republic, and every other country who's had a currency collapse. High currency does not erode competitiveness, why weren't Zimbabwe and Weimar Republic more competitive when their currencies went to 0? Think of it this way, would you hold bitcoins if it dropped in value everyday? Or if it could be mined to infinity by politicians who think it's "too expensive"?

    1. Re:"...pushing the local currency higher" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too high of a value of your currency can kill exports. That's why Obama did three rounds of quantitative easement in order to reduce the value of the US dollar. That helped the poor since it reduced the value of the rich people's cash.

    2. Re:"...pushing the local currency higher" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      that is a massive oversimplification and lack of understanding on your part. Zimbabwe etc had massive stability issues corruption etc that led to the collapse of the currency, even if they had had a high currency they would still have been in the shit.. keeping your currency at a manageable level, low enough so that export businesses thrive, but high enough so you don't collapse is all about good fiscal policy. High currency value can be just as catastrophic as low value as all your businesses cannot effectively compete in the international markets.

    3. Re:"...pushing the local currency higher" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China disagrees, and has prospered because of it:

      The Chinese yuan has had a currency peg for years. This approach makes Chinese exports cheaper and, therefore, more attractive relative to those of other nations. By providing the global marketplace with greater motivation to buy its goods, China can help ensure its economic prosperity.

      As long as a currency peg keeps the yuan low relative to other currencies, consumers using foreign currencies can buy more of China's exports than they would if the yuan was more expensive. For example, if the People's Bank of China keeps the yuan weak compared to the U.S. dollar, consumers using the greenback can buy more Chinese exports than they would otherwise.

    4. Re:"...pushing the local currency higher" by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way, would you hold bitcoins if it dropped in value everyday?

      You're thinking like an investor in a currency. That's the wrong way to go about it on a macro-economic scale. A better question would be: would you do business in bitcoins for a fixed price if it dropped in value everyday?

      That is what erodes competitiveness. It still costs me $x to do {insert local job}, but why would anyone pay me $x if suddenly they can pay €y which is magically less than $x was yesterday. Paying $x adds to the local economy, paying the now less €y does not.

      We used to have price parity with the US dollar. Those were not good times and many local businesses went under, but hey at least we could import cheap goods and take holidays overseas, so someone's economy benefited.

      why weren't Zimbabwe and Weimar Republic more competitive when their currencies went to 0?

      Because it's a balancing act, and both 0 and infinity are really really bad numbers.

    5. Re:"...pushing the local currency higher" by hwihyw · · Score: 0

      Yes, high currency will kill your exports, and low currency will increase your exports. Do you know why? Because lowering the currency is lowering the price of your exports. So instead of selling a pound of apples to Canada and getting $1 Canadian dollar back, you sell it for $0.7 Canadian dollars. Yeah, you will increase exports and earn less for your exports, so what's the point? As long as you want to export and get nothing in return, sell your exports for free and you will export an infinite amount of products. And if your currency is lower, anything you import will be more expensive.

      How does reducing the price of exports and increasing the price of imports help the poor???

  4. bullshit. by Falconhell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Complete right wing rubbish, the reason we got thru the GFC without recession was the governments prompt stimulus actions at the time.
    The housing bubble is not due to supply, there are many vacant investor properties, it is the ridiculous negative gearing tax dodge that is fuelling the housing price problems.

    1. Re:bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.

      The only reason anyone made it through the GFC was because Obama (which inherited the mess) fired up the money presses and kept liquidity in the economy. If not for that it could have been decades long, the only thing that fixed the great depression in the 30s ultimately was WW2.. because ta-da the government starts spending up by building lots of stuff, thus putting liquidity into the economy.

      Australia is not special, its just been riding an almost never ending mining boom with China.

    2. Re:bullshit. by dwywit · · Score: 2

      You seem to have forgotten why Rudd & Co were able to take the actions they did - there was a BIG pile of cash reserves, put there by the previous govt as they enjoyed the profits and royalties of selling our coal & iron ore overseas. Unfortunately Rudd & Swan couldn't manage a chook raffle without going into debt.

      Anyway, you're right about negative gearing - the sooner it's given the chop, the better. All those "wealth creation" schemes based on buying investment properties using interest-only loans. Look at https://www.propertyclub.com.a... (Previously "The Investors Club") and what they promise.

      Use an interest-only loan (at up to 112% of the property valuation) to buy an investment property, rent it out, offset the losses against your other income in the first 1-2 years, then progressively borrow and buy more properties. Here's how it works - after about 7 years, the value of the property has doubled, and rents have risen to cover the loan's interest payments, but your loan still sits at the original value, so what do you do now? You borrow again for the difference between the original value and today's value, retire, and live on the money from the new loan. Lather, rinse, repeat. They boast of being "property millionaires", but they're living entirely on bank credit - their whole existence is debt financed by the current value of their investment properties. When, not if, the housing bubble bursts and property prices tumble, the banks will get worried and ask for their money. These people will have to put their properties on the market to service their debt (even though the philosophy is "never, ever sell"), but the market will be crowded, so there's likely to be defaults, repossession by the banks (technically mortgager's option to sell), and some destitute former millionaires.

      I can't wait to see it happen - these pricks are non-productive parasites and contribute nothing but a burden on the tax system that the rest of us have to pay for. Entirely legal, of course, but no government in the last 20 years has had the spine to drop or even sunset the negative gearing rules.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    3. Re:bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! *you're* the guy that owes me an NBN....

    4. Re:bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely true.

      We luckily had a few Economists at the Reserve Bank who lived through the previous major down-turn. They had the fore-sight to write a white paper about what to do in such a situation.

      When the GFC hit, they realised they were probably the only ones who knew what to do and advised the Government to immediately give a one time payout and it worked brilliantly.

      Many complained that the money was just spent on flat-screen TVs; but that was just the point - inject cash.

    5. Re:bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Many complained that the money was just spent on flat-screen TVs; but that was just the point - inject cash."

      Yep. The ones that just stuck it in their mattress or in their bank weren't helping the economy as much as those that actually spent it.

    6. Re:bullshit. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The stagnation is a temporary thing, mainly due to the government taking no significant action to avert it, preferring to just do their get rich quick buddies favours for favours at election time. Right now Japan is also stagnating, so a smart move would be for both countries to work together to stimulate each others economies ie big step, open borders (well, not that big, neither Japanese nor Australians are big on emigration), which would open up access to both countries to each others consumers, a really beneficial partnership as each of them supplies exactly what the other needs.

      Sometimes you really have to think outside of the box, with both countries in similar time zones for communications efficiency but in opposite seasons for crop supplies, makes for good trade and tourism. Then the is the resources and heavy industries trading with tertiary industries and all tied together by balanced long term labour exchange.

      Not about competing with each other but joining together to gain considerable economic advantage against the rest of the world and striving to push ahead each others economy. Better to compete smart, than race like a greedy moron to the bottom and socio-economic collapse. Security against the predations of the US and China would also play into it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:bullshit. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The housing bubble is not due to supply, there are many vacant investor properties, it is the ridiculous negative gearing tax dodge that is fuelling the housing price problems.

      Good to see you're gobbling up the political speak hook line and sinker.

      Firstly there are no vacant investor properties. There are undesirable ones mostly fuelled by mum and dad investors who heard about this housing investment thing and then bought / renovated a house without any thought as to who would live there or how much they would pay and now can't get the money they want for it.
      If you're in a city and you have a vacant property you're doing it wrong and you should pick a different career.

      Secondly let's break down the second half of your sentence word by word:
      "ridiculous" - Any investment you make and is a loss can be offset on your taxes paid. That is the same whether you're buying a house, shares, starting a company that lost money, or are unemployed. It would only be ridiculous if one single subclass is excluded from the general principles that losses can offset taxes paid.
      "negative gearing" - You do realise what the word negative means right? As in you need to take a loss on the property before you can even start to get benefits. I bet you also think that the vast majority of investors go out of their way to negatively gear. In which case I have a very expensive house to sell you, in a great location, ... trust me.
      "tax dodge" - So by tax dodge you mean declaring expenses so your losses offset the tax you pay on your gains, well I'm calling you out you dirty tax dodger. Yes that's right YOU right there. The person who dodges taxes because they paid for medical insurance. The person who dodges taxes because they bought something for their work. I see one of two scenarios:
      a) you've never filled out the second page of your tax return and you're an idiot (thanks for the charity donation to the government).
      b) you have filled out the second page of your tax return and are a hypocrite.

      Me? I have an investment property. And I'm sure as shit am glad it doesn't need to be negatively geared. I like making money not spending it.

    8. Re:bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no vacant investor properties? There are an absolute shitload of them in Brisbane and likely other state capitals. It's a widely known fact in the real estate sector. They're not "doing it wrong" if they are overseas "investors" from China looking to get their money out of the country. We all know what negative gearing is. You don't take a loss on the property per se, you are paying more in interest than you receive in rent, are able to henceforth lower your personal tax bill, all with the long view that you'll get it back and then some in capital gains. It is a tax reduction method with a future worth gamble attached.

    9. Re:bullshit. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      You seem to have forgotten why Rudd & Co were able to take the actions they did - there was a BIG pile of cash reserves, put there by the previous govt as they enjoyed the profits and royalties of selling our public infrastructure.

      FTFY. That big pile of cash reserves is the reason why your gas and electricity bills have skyrocketed.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    10. Re:bullshit. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Well, arent you totally uniformed, there are vast amounts of unoccupied negative geared properties. Meanwhile, young people cant afford to buy their own residence, so they end up renting forever from negatively geared investors, manynof whom own multiple properties, who get capital gains.
      I know its difficult for someone well off enough to afford an investment property to understand, but you are simply ignoring reality.
      I absolutely stand by the words I used, and your beakdown is lttlie more than dishonest attempt to deny reality.

    11. Re:bullshit. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the debt now, under the hopeless LNP, far higher than under Rudd/Swann? Of does reality hot suit your narrative?
      It was by starving pensioners and unemployed that Howard/Costello built their surplus, on the back of reforms introduced under Labor, and the resources boom.
      Had the Howard govt not given away buckets of money tomthe well off in middle class welfare, instead of creating a national wealth fund as Norway did, no debt would have been needed.

    12. Re:bullshit. by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Yes, the debt is excessive, no doubt about that, and will likely get worse before it gets better. The income from selling resources is nowhere near what it was in the "boom". BTW, how much debt did the LNP inherit from Labor? You can't fix multi-billion-dollar national debts in one election cycle.

      The narrative is a familiar one. Labor gets into power, and proceeds to spend, spend, spend (hint: you may or may not remember what happened in the 1970s under Whitlam). If the money isn't in the bank, Labor will borrow it, leaving the debt to be paid by future governments. Then the libs/nats win an election because the debt-ridden economy is in the shitter, and they get criticized for austerity measures needed to bring the debt under control. Labor loves to spend money on social programs, they just have no idea how to obtain the money other than borrowing it.

      Anyway, Howard & Costello socked away a lot of money during the resources boom. Guess what? They were trying to create a national wealth fund! They also handed out a lot of money in welfare - Family Tax A&B (which progressively reduces as your income increases, so it's not going to the "well off", it's going to low-and-middle-income families), Child allowance (baby bonus), etc which *could* have gone into a national wealth fund, but they decided that the Australian people should enjoy some of the wealth *now*. I can't fault that thinking - "here's a lot of money, you can have some to spend, but we're going to put some in the bank, too."

      What would you have had them do? Put it *all* into a national wealth fund? That would have left pensioners, unemployed AND the middle class all worse off. Spend it *all* on welfare? That would have left Rudd & Swan with nothing to spend to keep us afloat. Or should the welfare handouts have gone to pensioners and unemployed instead? I notice that Labor in 2008-2009 didn't exactly cut off the "middle-class welfare" and hand it all over to the pensioners and unemployed.

      I don't mind that Rudd & Swan spent what was in the bank, it was pretty much the only sensible thing to do under the circumstances. What I mind is that they continued to spend, borrowing to do so, and leaving us with a huge debt.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  5. I purchased a house just before the 1991 recession by Catharz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was our first house, and my partner was a lot more risk adverse than me. She insisted we be prepared for one of us being out of work and interest rates doubling. Both happened. I changed careers to IT and it took me nearly 2 years to get work, while interest rates went from 9% to 18% in a matter of months.

    We managed to pay the mortgage and keep the house, but it was not a fun time.

    --
    To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
  6. Chinese buying the property, selling all resources by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've posted this maybe dozens of times across the internet, I'm tired of shouting it and I'm tired of making lengthy posts with links and evidence.

    The country is selling all it's gas, minerals at rock bottom prices to anyone and everyone for a start. In a huge massive way. The mining boom is finally slowing down significantly, at least so I hear.

    We are also pretty lax with stopping people buying property. There's arguments why shouldn't we stop them, but seriously, I'm sick of debating it. If you can't see how someone vastly wealthier than the common local, bidding for houses isn't going to mess up the cost for the locals,..... well I don't know what to say. There's a reason Thailand, Indonesia, other smaller second class countries don't let foreigners buy.

    We're getting 'Vancouvered'. It ain't about race, it's about economics and the locals (who don't own yet, you know, a LOT of people) are getting destroyed, totally by this.

    That's the facts, it's as simple as that. Furthermore, as long as the Chinese can still buy property (and they do it legally and illegally) then I suspect the 'crash' which I've hoped for, for a decade, simply won't come. They'll just see a cheaper place to store their money they want to hide from China.

    We're boned. Best benefit to all this would be a property developer in the last 20 years. Rest of us? Well I've held off using expletives but to say I'm white hot raging angry would be an understatement. @$#%^ our governments.

  7. Selling their ass to China by bazmail · · Score: 1

    ... More shrimp on the Bar-B. G'day.

    1. Re:Selling their ass to China by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      ... More shrimp on the Bar-B. G'day.

      Can't shrimp the Barby, we sold all our gas too.

  8. This is gobshite by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 0

    It's because most middle and lower class Australian homes have solar and wind power, and fairly efficient hot water boiling carafes, so they don't need to go broke importing stuff and mostly export stuff.

    Like coal.

    Which is dying.

    So, when the bubble bursts, it bursts because they export stuff we won't be needing and they can't save money by becoming more efficient.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re: This is gobshite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you heard it here first: Australia dodges recession through it's awesome kettle technology. Invest now in Australian Carafe Stock!

  9. Re:Slashdot news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1

    Believe nothing for the next 48hours.

  10. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    The country is selling all it's gas

    You're not wrong. What a wonderful example of a free-market economy. A small localised gas supply at relatively cheap prices made using gas for everything affordable. Even cars were converted to run on LPG to save costs.

    Fastforward to now. Shale gas has boomed. Australia sold it's own grandmother to gas companies for a penny and we became a huge exporter of gas able to rival Russia and the middle east. Everything happy right? Except Australiasian gas prices fell to below the break even cost of the shale gas but thanks to pre-existing contracts with China and Japan they couldn't just stop production without a penalty. Wait a second, it's a free market! Just buy all the local cheap gas and sell it overseas instead of the shale gas.

    No money for the government, no gas for the people, but a few oil companies are able to stay afloat despite their shitty business decisions. The economy is still running and the government pat themselves on the back for not going into recession even though they have no handle on the situation at all.

    Hurrah!

  11. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by breeze95 · · Score: 1

    I've posted this maybe dozens of times across the internet, I'm tired of shouting it and I'm tired of making lengthy posts with links and evidence.

    The country is selling all it's gas, minerals at rock bottom prices to anyone and everyone for a start. In a huge massive way. The mining boom is finally slowing down significantly, at least so I hear.

    We are also pretty lax with stopping people buying property. There's arguments why shouldn't we stop them, but seriously, I'm sick of debating it. If you can't see how someone vastly wealthier than the common local, bidding for houses isn't going to mess up the cost for the locals,..... well I don't know what to say. There's a reason Thailand, Indonesia, other smaller second class countries don't let foreigners buy.

    We're getting 'Vancouvered'. It ain't about race, it's about economics and the locals (who don't own yet, you know, a LOT of people) are getting destroyed, totally by this.

    That's the facts, it's as simple as that. Furthermore, as long as the Chinese can still buy property (and they do it legally and illegally) then I suspect the 'crash' which I've hoped for, for a decade, simply won't come. They'll just see a cheaper place to store their money they want to hide from China.

    We're boned. Best benefit to all this would be a property developer in the last 20 years. Rest of us? Well I've held off using expletives but to say I'm white hot raging angry would be an understatement. @$#%^ our governments.

    Oh please, spare us your xenophobia. I have heard such sentiments in the late 80's and 90's when the Japanese were on a spending spree. Everyone were concerned by the Japanese buying up American assets while conveniently ignoring that citizens and business entities of the UK owned more assets in America than the Japanese. I wonder why people were concerned about the Japanese and not the English. On second thought, I know why. Those other counties, you mentioned, preventing Chinese from buying property are xenophobic as heck against the Chinese and a sad day if America follow suit. Foreign entities wanting to buy assets and invest in America is a good thing.

  12. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by AbRASiON · · Score: 0, Troll

    It has to do with economics, not race. It's not logical to sell out property and land to foreigners, period.

    However I've triggered some kind of angry extreme leftist rant, which I'm not surprised, there's still a couple of you guys left coming here. I used to be one of you!

    Anyhow, good day, I'm not even going to waste my time replying to the points in your post, if you can't understand what I wrote the first time, you'll hardly understand the second.

    I'll let the moderators deal with the problem.

  13. I've done my part to help 'em out by willoughby · · Score: 1

    I just had a gorgeous Akubra hat sent over. It was 20 days in L.A. customs but I finally got it.

    1. Re:I've done my part to help 'em out by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Don't tell PETA they're made from rabbit fur. They *are* nice hats, though. Check back in a couple of years when you've worn it in ;-)

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  14. Car Industry by ishmaelflood · · Score: 0

    The Australian Government's (both Labor and Coalition) over the last 15 years have conspicuously failed to support the automotive industry in the face of the high exchange rate caused by our enormous mineral exports. This is in opposition to the way they supported the banks via all sorts of funny schemes.

    As a result Australia is the only country I have ever heard of which has decided that the auto industry is not a good idea.

    So first the assembly workers went. Then the factories went. That meant there was no critical volume for precision machining, so then the toolmakers went. That meant the local aircraft maintenance industry couldn't get the stuff they needed, so aircraft maintenance was offshored. Meanwhile all the suppliers of parts had to diversify into less rigorous but less profitable lines. So the engineers went.

    I'm lucky, we still design and develop cars for manufacture all over the world (except in Australia), so our product development centre is expanding.But an industry that used to employ around 50-100 000 well paid highish technology or skilled jobs is practically dead, with maybe 2000 people left.

    So escaping the GFC probably is not due to the incredible foresight of the gummint, just lucky.

    1. Re:Car Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's how countries slowly lose all their highly trained middle class and transition to a nation of low paid walmart/coles workers selling cheap imported goods to each other. labor becomes toothless because you can replace the entire staff of workers overnight.

    2. Re:Car Industry by dwywit · · Score: 2

      You can't keep throwing public money at private companies to preserve local jobs when it's become obvious that we simply can't compete with manufacturing in developing countries. The big automakers have closed because it's just cheaper to make cars in other countries, regardless of how many govt "incentives" they get.

      You may as well have the govt nationalise the auto industry if they're going to keep funding it.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  15. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    then I suspect the 'crash' which I've hoped for

    I wouldn't hope for any crash, much less a property crash. Just remember what happens when prices come down. It sound great for a new home buyer, but well didn't we just witness what happened in 2008? A sizeable chunk of the population not being able to afford their houses as interest rates spike and the investment value crumbles has a horrible effect on the economy.

  16. That GDP chart .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    You're holding it upside-down mate.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  17. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like it is about race.

  18. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I no longer care, I couldn't care less.
    Fuck them all, a generation (or 3!) have been fucked by the Australian government policies and I want to see it all crumble horrifically.
    There's far too many "interest only loan" investors with 2,3,4 properties, reducing their taxable income (google: "negative gearing" a true scam for the rich).

    Nope the middle class, the young and a small handful of the cautious middle aged (me) have been ruined. Let it fall to utter pieces.

  19. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    One particular race is by far the most common, because they are now,
    a) rich
    b) there's over a billion of them
    c) in a country which has inferior health care, schools, breathable air
    d) in a country where the government can take their money at will (historically)

    The problem is *primarily* Chinese investment. You could re-word my post to say "foreign investment" and remove all elements of race in it, it wouldn't change the fact it's *by far* Chinese investment and even the pro housing blogs, news articles, cite the Chinese as "keeping us going, yay!"

    At the end of the day *as stated in my damn post* huge swathes of money coming in from another country, into housing is extremely detrimental to the locals, period.

  20. Labour laws from the 1970s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of the labour laws in Oz are also unreasonable on the employer.

    - Leave loading (yep, that's right. 10% extra pay when on holiday)
    - 9.5% compulsory superannuation.
    - Casual employee loading on top of the minimum wage, where 25% might be normal.
    - Obligations to track payments to building contractors, and a judgement to pay tax on their behalf if not tracked properly
    - Paid "Personal Leave" which goes above and beyond sick leave
    - Huge fringe benefit tax obligations. Not just for cars and fuel, but interpretation of when the car can't be used, travel etc.
    - All of this on top of a necessary high basic wage and minimum wage, needed partly because of property prices.

    It is really complex and expensive to use Australian labour.

  21. Quick questions by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    LOL.

    The only reason anyone made it through the GFC was because Obama (which inherited the mess) fired up the money presses and kept liquidity in the economy. If not for that it could have been decades long, the only thing that fixed the great depression in the 30s ultimately was WW2.. because ta-da the government starts spending up by building lots of stuff, thus putting liquidity into the economy.

    Australia is not special, its just been riding an almost never ending mining boom with China.

    Quick question for you.

    1) The US pretty-much doubled federal spending in order to get us out of the depression, putting us now $20 trillion in debt.

    2) Depressions seem to come roughly every 8 or 9 years. Call it every 10 years.

    3) When the next depression hits, will the US have had enough time to pay back the extra debt?

    4) Are steps 1-3, a sustainable plan for shortening recessions going forward?

    Extra credit:

    According to your post, the US helped *everyone* through the depression. Was the extra debt borne by everyone, or only the US? Will foreign citizens help us pay back the money we spent to help them through, or only US citizens?

    Was the extra money spent on things that would make our economy stronger, such as infrastructure, high-speed internet access, health care, or research? Or was it spent to expand the military (as in: number of aircraft carriers)?

    Spending all that money, is the economy sound or are we just limping along? Are we back to the pre-depression unemployment levels and wage levels?

    Would it have been better to simply let the banks fail, so that the depression was worse but much shorter? Did any other countries do this, and what were their results?

    1. Re:Quick questions by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most countries went into debt to deal with the US triggered recession, only America was/is in a position to fire up the printing presses to print trillions of dollars without massive inflation, and also to borrow even more trillions. America could easily pay back its debt and/or spend on infrastructure if they didn't stupidly cut taxes regularly. And why should other countries pay for Americas stupidity in deregulating their banks? My countries banks were regulated well enough that they didn't cause the banking crisis and according to the above posts, same with Australia's.
      It's up to America to fix their problem of not being able to manage their money/economy. The trick is to save when things are going good instead of slacking off, but the rest of the world notices that you've once again elected the money/economy miss managers whose plan to pay off the debt is to increase military spending along with infrastructure spending and cut taxes.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    2. Re:Quick questions by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Would it have been better to simply let the banks fail, so that the depression was worse but much shorter?

      The banks failed due to writing mortgages which they knew were bad. But the banks also knew that they would repo those properties when the mortgages failed. Then they got bailed out, and then "repaid" the bailout with money which we gave them to spend on other things, and meanwhile, they got to keep those properties. The banks won't sell the homes for what they are worth (what the market will bear) so they're just sitting on them hoping for a recovery that isn't going to come while people are throwing their money down a rent hole. Or in some cases, they are renting them, and profiting from the situation directly. But this situation is unsustainable.

      If we were going to bail out the banks, which may have been the most reasonable thing to do, then we should have got something for our bailout. And that something should have been those houses. The banks should have been forced to either give away or give back any property on which they foreclosed when they knew damned well that it was a bad mortgage.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Quick questions by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The banks failed due to writing mortgages which they knew were bad.

      They did not "know" the mortgages were bad. Only the shorties knew that. If the banks had "known" the mortgages were bad, they wouldn't have needed a bailout. The banks (along with everyone else) "knew" that the mortgages would be fine as long as property prices continued to climb ... and everyone "knew" that the housing market never went down.

      The bankers were not as smart as you think they were.

    4. Re:Quick questions by AHuxley · · Score: 0

      Yes US banks had to offer home loans in all parts of the USA that they operated in. So a lot of home loans got offered to poor people who could never pay back the loans.
      Just giving out a lot of cash to random poor people, not been paid back could be supported.
      The US government thought it was a great way to ensure poor people could buy homes. The reason why banks never offered loans to such poor people is because they never pay back the loans.
      Australia did like to ask if a person could pay a loan back and did request some supporting documents to show the loan could be paid back.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Quick questions by Luthair · · Score: 1

      According to your post, the US helped *everyone* through the depression. Was the extra debt borne by everyone, or only the US? Will foreign citizens help us pay back the money we spent to help them through, or only US citizens?

      The US was the primary beneficiary of the causing factors of the crash, other countries were largely caught in the fallout. And yes, other countries have been also been stuck with doing a lot of stimulus.

      Was the extra money spent on things that would make our economy stronger, such as infrastructure, high-speed internet access, health care, or research? Or was it spent to expand the military (as in: number of aircraft carriers)?

      Wasn't a lot of it given to the bankers who caused the problems as zero cost loans.

    6. Re:Quick questions by Luthair · · Score: 1

      I think its more accurate to state that they looked the other way for short term profits

    7. Re:Quick questions by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes US banks had to offer home loans in all parts of the USA that they operated in. So a lot of home loans got offered to poor people who could never pay back the loans.

      They had to offer loans. But they deliberately misrated loan risk so that they could offer loans to people who they knew couldn't pay them back.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Quick questions by tbannist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most of what you wrote is complete and utter bullshit. The majority of the bad loans weren't even written by banks, they were written by loan companies which were under no obligations to provide loans to anyone for any reason. You blame the government, but the banks would have done it anyway in the quest for profits. Sub-prime loans were extremely profitable, and as long as the housing market continued to rise, they were almost risk free because whoever owned the loan could foreclose on the house which would be worth more than the loan on it. The shady side of the subprime loan industry was the belief that even if they offered loans to people who likely couldn't pay, the lender could take their money until they couldn't pay any more and then steal the house for resale (and a quick profit) when they failed to make payments.

      The government didn't have to force them to do anything, they hung themselves with short-sighted greed.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    9. Re:Quick questions by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Over the years the Community Reinvestment Act tried to offer banking products to the US poor in local communities.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:Quick questions by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      I think its more accurate to state that they looked the other way for short term profits

      If they "knew" the mortgages were bad, they could have made WAY more money buying CDSes and shorting the housing market. Some people got filthy rich doing exactly that, but other than Goldman, they were not "bankers".

    11. Re:Quick questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remind us why again America should pour huge resources into defending the free world, your western lifestyles and capitalist economies ? The US tax payer funds this largely to the rest of the worlds benefit.

      YOURE WELCOME!

    12. Re:Quick questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct.

      We have the US to thank for those low interest 30 year home loans we all enjoy - these were created by the US government during the great depression to help people keep their homes. Over the decades Wall Street wanted in on home loans and slowly chipped away at regulations which were changed in their favor in the 80s and 90s no doubt with promises of wonderful things, the result of them getting a piece of the pie was the GFC.

    13. Re:Quick questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, but I think you are wrong - over countries governments used it to take advantage of it for them selves and the ruling class - this is the problem with socialism thinly disguised as democracies. The US is a republic with a capitalist democracy - a very important difference everyone chooses to ignore.

  22. More Starve the Beast? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Not sure about Australia, but here in the States the trouble is we keep giving our upper class massive tax cuts. Then we don't cut services (because if we did people would demand we repeal those tax cuts) and instead borrow the money. The idea is the system will eventually collapse and the rich will swoop in during the chaos and take control of the country. I'd like to think we'll be smart and stop that, but so far no such luck.

    If you guys are going through this then my apologies. Your ruling class learned it from ours.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  23. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by Zubinix · · Score: 1

    No. The Chinese alone are not responsible for exorbitant Australian property prices. They are just one of many factors. Larger factors include generous tax concessions (negative gearing and capital gains discounts) and the role of property investors (mostly mum's and dad's) buying their second (or more) property. Possibly the biggest factor is that everyone want's to buy in the inner-city areas of Melbourne and Sydney due to poor infrastructure and jobs growth outside these areas. House prices in other Australian capital cities are much lower in general and rarely in boom conditions.

    Look at this article from the Murdoch press (aka. right side of politics) chinese property investment in Australia its a more balanced view of the effect of Chinese property investments.

  24. Re: Chinese buying the property, selling all resou by HarryRoache-Wilson · · Score: 1

    Your parochialism is astounding. Give the Chinese more incentives to come here I say, they're bringing much more value to Australia than your typical 'local'. Your argument is petulant and short sighted, we live in Asia and should become more Asian because the future is in Asia

  25. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    Bear in mind the subject of this Slashdot article, it's not so much about the prices only, it's about the lack of a recession.

    Rising property prices with no external influx of money wouldn't shield us from a recession, selling all our resources and allowing huge amounts of foreign investment however would grow or at least reduce stagnation of the economy.

    Totally agree about negative gearing, it's disgusting, no other word for it. None the less the foreign investment thing is huge.

    Also general overall massive immigration, my understanding is that this boosts our overall economic figures each year as we've got more 'turnover' for lack of a better word. Not looking at the overall average wealth / buying power of a typical middle class Australian, which is infact slowly eroding and has been for a while.

  26. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah globalist cunt .. get with the plan. Historians observe you are either zeno 24/7/365 or you are pighit for the wealthy. Make a nationalist choice or get put-down as citizens enemy ASAP.

  27. Re: Chinese buying the property, selling all resou by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    Yep, that makes sense, if you didn't buy a house in the 90s "fuck you" response. Very typical and unsurprising whatsoever.

    Also, not all of the Chinese investors come here, where did I claim that? Quite a few buy here and don't come, the unoccupied house is simply, effectively used as a "physical bank" to keep cash out of China.

    http://boingboing.net/2017/03/...

    You people are never ending. "Fuck the losers who don't have a house", who cares if they are only 18 or 23 or 25 or even 35. Nope fuck em "should've got one sooner, this boom is great!!!! "

    Just stop.

  28. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by Catharz · · Score: 1

    Foreign investment is a factor, but nowhere near the biggest one is.

    The shift from having pensions to superannuation, and the implementation of negative gearing are the biggest issues. Owning multiple homes has become the retirement plan of most of the population. Our politicians (including our prime minister) are some of the largest property investors in the country. We have a level of plutocracy on par with Columbia, and property developers are making a killing. Several IT people I know have already given up on buying a home.

    Negative gearing is the really absurd bit though. Friend of mine had so many properties, and so much debt that the government was paying him a hardship allowance. He lives in a 3 story, 50sq mansion relatively close to the city. His top story "man cave" is bigger than most 3br apartments in the city.

    --
    To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
  29. -$1T (no ShIT) by bigtreeman · · Score: 0

    One Trillion dollars of national debt.
    That's the real cost of the longest stretch of increasing corporate profits and greed ever.
    The real estate market is a ponzi scheme, propped up by tax dodges instituted by the Howard government.
    When we say the mining boom is over, that's just the construction phase,
    now they're extracting and exporting, so minimal local jobs for maximum multinational profits.
    The costs of development are offset against taxes so the multinationals will reap years of tax-free profits.
    The (Liberal or Labour) government is directed by it's corporate overlords.
    We're being held upside down and all the pennies shaken out of our pockets.

    --
    Go well
  30. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    I totally agree with you, but bear in mind the subject of this particular article.

    I covered this here.
    https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

  31. Re:I purchased a house just before the 1991 recess by Centurix · · Score: 1

    Also bought a house in 1990, that was a painful time. Can't imagine losing a job as well.

    --
    Task Mangler
  32. Re: Chinese buying the property, selling all resou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd agree. I grew up in NZ, the housing market took off in my early 20's, by my mid 20's it was too late, you needed two decent incomes to buy anything. The GFC in 2008 did nothing to stop it. There is absolutely no hope for anyone to afford to buy a house on the average income now, its a lost dream.

    I suppose I got lucky and met a gal from the US when I was roaming around Canada on a working holiday visa in 2010. By 2014 we'd gotten married had a kid, and bought a house about 35 miles south of Seattle - here is the kicker - we did this on my one income, and got a place on a nice street on a 1/4 acre lot for just over 200k. Thats what it should be like in Australia and NZ, afford a half decent house on one income.

    Much like your self, I got pretty fed up with the smug attitudes of people there were able to get into house ownership before it took off, or had a golden egg from their parents to help. Even worse are the f***ers that own 2 or 3 houses that smile all the way to the bank like its a well deserved gift from God.

  33. The real reason - economic reform in the 80s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real reasons are pretty simple :

    1 - Free-market reforms in the 80s and 90s that liberated the economy by the Hawke and Keating governments : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawke%E2%80%93Keating_Government

    2 - A long-running commodities boom fuelled by demand from China, which Australia was well placed to satisfy due to abundant natural resources.

  34. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has to do with economics, not race. It's not logical to sell out property and land to foreigners, period.

    It has NOTHING to do with economics, and it is foolish NOT to sell out property and land to foreigners, period.

    Land is the ONLY thing that foreigners can buy but cannot take back home. A foreigner buying land in one place has only two choices --rent it to locals at the market price, or not. The latter means they just spent a bunch of cash for zero return (actually negative if there is any tax or fees owed to government).

    If you are going to retort high land price will drive up the rent price, go learn some basic economics. Or even better, go buy some land in the middle of nowhere to drive up the land price then watch the rent go up, and remember to hold your breath while waiting.

    Real economic activities drive up rent prices, that's why buying up property in ghost towns won't drive up the rent price. When there is no one is looking for a place to rent, rent price can't go up no matter how much the land cost.

    So buying property in a place is essentially betting that the place is going to have more economic success, and foreigners buying property in your city means those foreigners now have a vested interest in your city's economy going well, that will never hurt.

    Furthermore, the previous local owner, now having sold his property to a foreigner, now have the cash to invest in something more profitable (else he won't be selling in the first place). That's more profit for the *local* ex-owner, and if he invests locally, then more locals get to benefit. So you are effectively getting foreign investments when a foreigner buy local property, and unless you are xenophobic, foreign investment is always a good thing to the local economy.

    Race is the only real reason for people to fight against foreigners buying land and local properties.

  35. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chicken, meet egg.

    When people buy properties, property prices rise as the pool of available properties drops. Basic supply and demand. The remaining, price-inflated properties are no longer able to be purchased by people that need to own them as they can't afford the inflated price/deposit/mortgage, leaving them no choice but to rent. This increased demand for rental properties pushes rental prices up. More basic supply and demand. And with inflated rental prices, these same people (the average working Joe) are even less able to meet the price/deposit/mortgage requirements to purchase as they're now blowing a greater portion of their incomes paying off someone else's mortgage, be they local or foreign owners.

    But let's not let basic mathematics get in the way of ideology.

  36. Re: Chinese buying the property, selling all resou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chinese invest in property as a physical bank. They don't care about return, except for when they decide to sell. They've even done it in their own country, building row after row of high rise condo in ghost towns which sit empty, at incredible damage to their own economy. You think they give a shit about other economies? Artificially driving up the price of real estate only helps the early comers. That is how they get their return.

  37. The Lucky Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Resources have saved Australia's bacon many a time, hence the term "The Lucky Country" was coined in the 1960's (although not in a positive light). The only reason Australia avoided the GFC is because China started developing their internal markets for their products causing another boom in manufacturing there which meant a continued demand for resources. Some people claim that it was just the Australian govt's fiscal policies that saved them. If that is the case then how come Brazil was booming at the same time? Anyway Australia is the Saudi Arabia of the Pacific, but instead of Wahhabism being the dominant religion it is materialism, oh and hating refugees of course. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Australia isn't doing anything to wean themselves off selling everything, so one day...... People complain how bad Trump is regarding refugees, but have a look at what Australia does to them and how it makes Trump look like a bleeding heart liberal. It doesn't say much for the people who keep voting for this.

  38. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh please, spare us your xenophobia.

    If I said the population of Africa is mostly black is that xenophobia? No? Then why is pointing out the simple fact that there is an incredibly large institutional investment from Chinese non-residents of Australia in the country?

    I mean every major skyrise construction is bought out mostly by Chinese non-residents. Whole suburbs in major cities have been bought and build by Chinese non-residents. The two largest cattle companies in Australia have been bought out by Chinese consortium. The largest property in Australia (the size of Israel) was bought by a Chinese consortium. And let's not forget the all their investment in our dairy industry, coal industry, telecoms, ... they'd own it all if it weren't for the fact that the government keeps coming up with new laws limiting foreign ownership (and good-on-em as well).

    I wonder why people were concerned about the Japanese and not the English.

    You may wonder, but you don't know despite what you claim. There's a big difference between having foreign ownership from a country who is a close ally, has strong political ties, similar financial systems, and works on the same principles as yourself, vs a country who you will quite likely be at war with again within the century, who you have strained political relations with, and who you accuse of and constantly take to the various trade organisations of deceptively rigging their financial and trading systems. China is economically hostile, just as Japan was in the 80s.

    The fact that you put this down to xenophobia is just an amazing display of ignorance.

  39. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    and I want to see it all crumble horrifically.

    Yeah before you do, let me move my pension and all my other investments overseas. You want to shoot yourself in the foot then go right ahead but please don't get blood on everyone else.

    google: "negative gearing" a true scam for the rich

    Taking a loss on an investment and offsetting it against the tax you pay is a scam? I find it funny you think it's a scam for the rich since they don't pay enough taxes to offset for negative gearing in the first place. Also those with 2 3 4 investment properties driving up the prices? Well a large portion of that you can thank to Chinese non-residents who can't negatively gear anyway. Negative gearing is nothing more than the same deduction applied to every single other thing you do with your cash. Your company makes a loss? It's deducted from taxes. You spend more on education than you get from it? It's deducted from your taxes. Hell you get medical insurance, it's deducted from your taxes.

    But yeah whatever man. Enjoy your next major recession. Just don't go begging for a handout since you want it so badly.

  40. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting with X properties available for rental and Y people wanting to rent. Now Z out of X properties were bought by foreigners, leaving... exactly X properties available for rental, and exactly Y people wanting to rent. Everything the same as before, except the price of the Z properties are now cash in the hands of locals.

    People who would have bought a property and now chose to rent will take exactly 1 property out from X in either case, leaving X-1 for the rest.

    Yeah, right, don't let basic maths get in the way of xenophobes.

    Unless you have properties being bought and deliberately left vacant, a property changing owner will have ZERO effect on the rental market. In fact, foreign investors prefer properties that comes with tenants, so they can receive return on the their investments right away, having nil effect on the rental market.

  41. Re:I purchased a house just before the 1991 recess by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    didnt go fixed rate?

  42. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, really? No.

  43. Canadians, Alaskans and M4GW by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    .Plenty of water and improved CO2 levels mean less CO2 starvation for plants and better growing results.

    I don't subscribe that the historical CO2 levels have been reported, correlated and projected accurately (e.g. Antarctic levels, cores are lower than arctic levels but not noted) nor do I buy the proposed CO2 accumulation levels, due to actual kinetic measurements of CO2 lifetime. This independent of the CO2 itself causes catastrophic warming discussion.

  44. Re:I purchased a house just before the 1991 recess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another bullshit thing about banks in Australia and NZ - they dont fix the rate for the life of the loan like you can in the US. They let you fix it for a few years then you have to redo it again, and again, and again, if interest rates take off you are f***ed.

    We bought a house in 2014 in the US, the interest rate for us was 4.85%, and it'll stay at that for the life of the loan unless I choose to refinance it.

  45. Re:I purchased a house just before the 1991 recess by Catharz · · Score: 1

    In those days, banks didn't throw money at you like they do now and fixed rate loans were hard to get when you were in our 20s.

    --
    To know that you know what you know, and that you do not know what you do not know, that is true wisdom. --Scooby Doo
  46. Housing in Australia by DMJC · · Score: 2

    Housing in Australia has several components to it which I will try to cover in this post. I live in Melbourne Australia and I want to provide insight to people interested in learning more. 1. The 1980s Hawke/Keating Market reforms set the country up for the past 30 years of economic growth. Anyone denying that is crazy. They floated the currency, freed up the market for global trade and set the nation on a path to long term wealth. They did however over stamp on the breaks in 1991 causing a short recession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... 2. Negative Gearing and the Capital Gains Tax concessions are two massive tax breaks for existing home owners. Their effects are huge and not to be underestimated. Negative gearing allows any loss on a property such as repair work or investment loss to be written off against the owner's taxable income. Originally it was introduced to boost investment in the housing market. The Capital gains discount allows a property owner to not pay tax on 50% of their profit on a property when they sell it. In the current market this has created a situation where it is better to leave a property empty, appreciating in value and then sell it without the hassle of dealing with tenants and property management firms. http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... 3. Foreign investment. Market research data from Vancouver shows that implementing a 15% tax on foreign property investment caused a property price drop of around 20%. Where that money is coming from doesn't really matter, the point is that foreign investment accounts for approximately 8-11% of properties purchased in the market. https://www.bloomberg.com/news... 4. Recent studies of water usage in Melbourne and Sydney show that upto 80,000 properties in Melbourne alone lie vacant. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ne... and http://www.afr.com/real-estate... 5. Immigration, 182,000 people migrated to Australia in 2015-16 the 2016-17 stats are not available http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats... This is a large number by Australian standards, but most immigrants are not rich enough to buy property outright. Mostly they increase competition in the rental market. Most of these people are settling in Sydney and Melbourne with an estimate of 70-80% of people moving to these two cities. http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... 6. The mining/resources boom. In the late 1990s/early 2000s the mining/resources boom brought a ton of wealth into Australia, this prevented a natural correction from occurring in the property market. More money flooded into the market which has helped to inflate prices and keep the cycle going. Now, with all of these factors combining there are many things occurring in the domestic market. Yes the car industry is closing, but overall that's not a big deal so far, because we haven't been exporting many cars for years and it's been a government funded jobs program. Wages are stagnant and growth is quite low at the moment, at the same time we have seen layoffs increasing especially in the mineral states such as Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. The biggest threat to the economy in my opinion is high house prices growth at a time of high unemployment growth. We are seeing areas which most people would not consider desirable to purchase housing in (traditionally poverty stricken high crime areas)

    1. Re:Housing in Australia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hawke/Keating first imposed the capital gains tax, which was cumbersome to correctly calculate (and still is, somewhat).
      The CGT discount for assets held longer than 12 months (not just houses) is to simplify the calculation of the CGT.
      The median income in Australia is about Aus$50,000.
      The 'average wage' (a specific type of income) is much higher, but people living off investments or on welfare don't receive a wage, so they are not counted, though people receiving multiple million dollar salaries are.
      And the 'average wage' is generally actually the average full-time adult male wage, when you dig down to find out what, specifically, it is measuring.
      So part time workers, women, or youth wages are not counted either.
      If your income is Aus$180,000 or more you are receiving more than 97% of the rest of the Australians receive as income.
      The respective skill that the Liberal/National party (aka The Coalition) have in managing the economy versus the Labor parties management is easily searchable online. Search for "who is the better economic managing party in Australia?" and select from your page of "it's Labor" answers, from various sources.
      Basically, when Labor is in power we have higher wage growth, higher GDP growth, lower inflation and lower unemployment. And they build infrastructure.
      The Coalition reverse those trends.
      Australia's future looks... poor, as we are turning into selfish and wilful idiots who don't trust politicians (any national sporting team has more paid up members than all our political parties together, I've read) and with this level of distrust politicians pander to their 'yes men' and feather their own nests.

  47. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Japan didn't have laws excluding any foreign company from owning more than 50 of a business, so I didn't care at the time. Neither did England.
    China, however....

  48. Re:Chinese buying the property, selling all resour by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    The problem with Chinese investment is it's an unfair one way street. "Oh, you want to own something here? Sorry! not allowed."