Banno might have not read yr post — kazan

:chin: My response is the one immediately after Franks...

As it turns out, a piece of art we purchased from the States arrived an hour or so ago. Very light - less than a half-kilo - but cost $70 freight, including a CO₂ offset. About half the same thing from Canada. Odd.

(The item cost less than $50, but would probably sell in AU for $400. Things you find on eBay.)

Is it the country and its people who can't be trusted? — kazan

I specified the administration.

However, in practical terms it amounts to the same thing. If I do an deal with some individual in the USA, I can no longer be confident that the circumstances of that deal will remain as they are - that an arbitrary tariff or tax will not be imposed, that the exchange rate will remain predictable, and so on.

That's the problem.

If you make it harder to buy or sell into the USA, we will buy or sell elsewhere. — Banno

We could have different issues, but the problems are the same: speculation and exclusion of first-home buyers. — javi2541997

Sure, yet there are differences. I came across this:



From https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/How-to-tackle-Australias-housing-challenge-Grattan-Institute-submission.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com, fig 2.1, comparison of growth in housing stock over two decades. Zero growth.

@Banno,

How does a CO2 offset work? Does the penguin, carrying the piece of art from the US to here, hold its breath all the way? And then breath out, hence not adding CO2 to the atmosphere "of the USA and countries in between"?
Offsets are carbon tax and don't prevent ( or really discourage) CO2 being added to the atmosphere/environment, one could argue/suggest, perhaps?
.
Sorry if your "immediately after Franks" response has not been read, yet... Will hasten to that now....lol

big smile

How does a CO2 offset work? — kazan

It pays for more trees, as I understand it. Not claiming to be carbon neutral here.

So first debate coming up - on Sky, ffsake. ↪Tom Storm
, presumably, will not be watching. Nor will I, because fuck Sky. — Banno

Know thy enemy. Sky's a great insight into the mindless. Well, it caters for the m/less!

small smile

It pays for more trees, as I understand it. Not claiming to be carbon neutral here. — Banno

So the delivery penguin should only exhale where trees can be grown...mmm!
Have a handle on your carbon attitude...same as here.... use it but minimize where reasonably possible.

time for tea smile

Sure, yet there are differences. I came across this: — Banno

Is this btw actual policy? Not to build new homes and hence keep the housing prices going steadily up?

Just check in the table UK. Same thing. Not much growth in housing. Big housing bubble there too. Also in Sweden, which also hasn't increased it's housing stock. Is this intentional by the political leadership?

Because if you let it to the markets, you would have a rapid boom and then a bust.

It keeps home owners happy voters. Rising prices home owners feel prosperous, even if they own just one home. Yet if the bubble bursts, there's a lot of bad consequences for banks and the financial sector as buying a home is the most expensive people usually done. The larger economy takes also a hit, because people might not own stocks, but they usually own a home. A bursting housing bubble is like applying a hand brake when braking: no matter if you have ABS brakes, that hand brake and you can lose control of the vehicle.

As said, it's very much a supply-side deficit.

The Libs blaming immigration and foreign investment is bullshit.

Second election debate tonight, on ABC.

Might tune in. I doubt it will be better than Hard Quiz, which it replaces.

As ↪Wayfarer said, it's very much a supply-side deficit.

The Libs blaming immigration and foreign investment is bullshit. — Banno

Yes, that obviously is that.

One reason can simply be that the banks and financial institutions do not want engage in competition.

Thus there are no aggressive banks that will loan either to builders that would rapidly increase the supply or discard loan requirements and start giving money to everybody, which would create a bubble. To create the classic housing bubble (and bust), you need aggressive banks that will hand out NINJA-loans (loans for people with no income, job or assets). Hence real estate bubble usually happen when the financial sector is deregulated.

So I guess the supply-side deficit can be either kept in place by banks or the government, or then likely with both agreeing on this. The drawback of this is that for new home buyers and for renters the situation is difficult. Yet if a large portions of Australians own their home, it's sound politics from the politicians to keep their voters happy by having their property wealth increasing.

But isn’t lending to building companies inherently greater risk and lower reward than lending for mortgages? After all, the kind of finance builders require is to cover the cost of building up until sale of the property (although I admit I don’t know anything much about property development.) Whereas a mortgage is a loan that pays interest over a 25 year term. I had thought that would be a better investment from the bank’s perspective.

But isn’t lending to building companies inherently greater risk and lower reward than lending for mortgages? — Wayfarer

Yes, but still Trump could build a lot of buildings. And not all builders are such failures. Besides, you do need the apartments and housing in the first place for mortrages. And if you have population growth, there truly is a need for more housing. Banks do want to have companies also as their customers.

I had thought that would be a better investment from the bank’s perspective. — Wayfarer

From the banks perspective rising home/real estate prices are really a good thing. This is because if a lender cannot pay, they'll just take the home and sell it on a profit. And this is the reason just why mortrages appear to be with so little risk. When the real estate prices increase, the bank doesn't make any losses, even if some lenders default. This is why builders are good customers to banks, when prices rise. Also when those building the homes are smaller companies, they are perfect customers for banks. Larger corporations don't need banks as they simply can go directly to the financial markets.

The Housing debate was pretty unedifying stuff, but Michael Sukkar showed himself to be a bit of a cunt. He begins by refusing to answer the simple question "How many homes will you build?", instead relying the now tedious practice of attacking his opponent. Then he denies the condemnation of the tax policy, refusing to say if it has been modelled. He refuses to answer the question of how many social and affordable hoses would be built. His behaviour is exactly that which has turned folk away from watching political discussions.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-17/federal-election-debate-housing-policy-negative-gearing/105162886

His mother would not be proud.

With postal voting opening on the day after Easter Monday, only the can't care less and the old and terrified will be postal voting early....Why?
'Cos no one really knows which political party will be springing a doozy or two of a policy at the 11th hour.
There only seems to be one consistent policy between the two major party groups and that is 'string out the drip feed for as long as possible to appear to be having an election battle'.
The reality is there's little on offer for the voters and little difference between the actual lists of promises.
It's an acute lack of options on offer this election with a huge bunch of problems to be resolved in the upcoming term..... like a poisoned chalice on offer but no one wants to get too close to handle it in fear of getting it wrong and falling out of favour at the next couple of elections. ( Rather like the looming
$ trillion deficit white elephant of the last Fed election.)
Put simply...classic political arse covering. Effective leadership? Not around here, mate!

His mother would not be proud. — Banno

Can you even presume upon motherhood to be a certain guiding force of good, nowadays?
Doubtful, it could be argued. Even as your point is taken on board.

barely a smile

Meh. I'll be voting early for reasons of simple convenience. Those who would change their vote because of some last minute change in policy place too much trust in politicians.