 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| What if it didn't happen? |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
Absolutely.
Residential housing and primary producers should only be able to be sold to Australian residents. |
I partly agree with that, but there's no need to create a new religion around it.
We need to look at all of the major causes before swallowing the latest negative gearer PR campaign ("it's all those dirty foreign so-and-sos, not us!").
Even before checking the data to see what the effect of overseas capital is, though, we already know it has to be a case of drawing smart lines for the right reasons, without unleashing unnecessary protectionism, and spreading yet more hysterical, fear-the-big-bad-world nonsense.
Residential housing is an enormous national priority, so I agree fully that it warrants close scrutiny and strong action.
However, negative gearing and overseas capital might be pushing up prices, but they're still only part of the problem; self-entitleds who think they own the "character" of entire suburbs, down to the shadows which fall upon their yard or their view of the hills, might well prove to be the biggest menace of all.
So, being balanced means dealing with all the main issues, and not letting one interest group mislead everyone into thinking some other party is to blame. It doesn't matter where the investment comes from if you're dumping people miles from work and services, and it's costing a fortune to provide infrastructure to them.
So, when it comes to housing affordability, look at (1) negative gearing, (2) overseas asset parking, (3) self-entitled, NIMBY planning distortion, and (4) current planning practices all within the context of (5) stagnate or declining real wages.
In contrast to housing, food doesn't suffer from geographic immobility issues. Primary production is global enough, and dynamic enough, for farmland to be mostly unrestricted, surely. (Perhaps with some adjustments maybe for Aussie geography, or certain foodstuffs, or whatever).
Not to mention biotech is going to rewrite food completely over the next 20 years, meaning the value of a lot of that land is likely to decline, and we can leave it fallow for environmental reasons, in complete contrast to apocalyptic food shortage nonsense.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I do t think genetic engineering will save the planet
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Is biotech something you secretly follow?  It's actually miles more advanced than most people think, as these things often are.
Mathematically, given rates of tech development, I think most futurists probably accept that biotech, nanotech, AI, and such, can readily deal with resource deficits. The very notion of an "energy" deficit is already a stupid one, which is huge progress given the last 100 years of oil wars and oil crises. (This is why people are divesting from fossil fuels and the North Africa to Russua is thrashing about like a cut snake, andalso why it's so insane to not be organising an orderly, rather than violent and chaotic, energy transition).
The bigger ongoing challenges will more likely be things which threaten dense populations: Bacteria and viruses, group-level violence such as groupist war and unrest, and high-impact change such as climate change and mass people movement.
Land certainly needs to be protected from degradation, and species extinction as discussed is a horror; however, Australia's *farm* land is *already* wrecked from an environmental and species POV, regardless of who invests in it.
In terms of the original discussion on affordability, the primary produce market doesn't seem to need increased protection at this time. On the other hand, housing certainly needs close scrutiny in those *four* areas mentioned.
(That doesn't mean there shouldn't be food security contingencies, of course).
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
....
Residential housing and primary producers should only be able to be sold to Australian residents. |
+1.
If Australians can't buy in. country x...then why should country x be allowed to buy....
Also this should apply to national assets such as:
Water
Utilities
Telco's
You old protectionist Stui
But I'm in full agreement.
Far too much money laundering by the Chinese tied up in property.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Dude, I've told you before my views don't line up neatly with any political party or agenda. Some are left, some are right, some are middle and some are just mine.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
