Oh dear... socialists think that can manipulate the market

[Leftwinger]

While a housing crash is not desirable, some good news may be that our kids may still be able to buy a decent house

That is the silver lining to this cloud, the deleveraging will make housing more affordable.

Yep, that's my number one concern - that the kids can afford a decent house without being shackled to a monsterous near-lifelong debt. The housing boom has seen what is probably the biggest transfer of wealth from the younger generation to the older generations in our country's history. Generation X and the baby boomers have done well in the here and now by passing an ever-increasing debt load down to future generations. Think about it - it's totally bizzare and not normal behaviour for human societies at all. As we grow older, we normally accumulate wealth which is passed down to the following generations but we've been doing the reverse, stealing from future generations the chance of reasonabley affording their own home, filling our own pockets today by passing on ever larger long term debt to the younger folk.

This is why societies have rules and regulations - to prevent this sort of thing from happening. It would not have been possible if lenders had not been allowed to extend loans that are 50%+ of the average household income. We all want the best for ourselves and I would be delighted if I was retiring and intending to downsize or travel and knew that I could get $500 000 for a house that I had originally paid $50 000 for. But I might not stop to consider that this had now become the norm and that people were struggling with a much bigger relative debt load than I ever had because debts of such magnitude were not available to the average borrower in my time.


All individuals cannot maximise their own self interest in exactly the same manner at the same time and I think our society is probabaly on the cusp of re-learning that fact the hard way. A bit less self centred individualism and a bit more collectivism would not go astray.

[Jovial Monk]

Boomers have been at forefront of environmental movements: Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” was our reader.

What about Gens X & Y? I think they vote Greens to feel good then pollute like crazy.

[Barb Dwyer]

Boomers have been at forefront of environmental movements: Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” was our reader.

What about Gens X & Y? I think they vote Greens to feel good then pollute like crazy.

You are a Boomer Monk. The Gen X & Ys are voting more conservatively than socialistic these days. They love having the money (and goods) and not sharing it with everyone who doesn't have anything. The Government is supposed to look after people who fall between the cracks .......... aren't they? Your Socialistic views are way past their prime.

[Jovial Monk]

Actually, they are voting minor party more than anything else.

I mentioned environment, not socialism.

[Ethnic]

Socialist and Conservative belief trends come and go. It all depends on the social, political and economic environment that is around us and young people are notorious for changing their views like underwear.

[Socky the Sock.]

.

[Leftwinger]

To be clear, my own generation - gen X - has been just as heavily involved in making home ownership unaffordable to gen Y as the boomers have. This is not the fault of the boomers or gen X per se - they've merely been taking advantage of the opportunities available to them as individuals. When one individual does something, there are not likely to be any consequences for society at large. But when large numbers of individuals all engage in the same behaviour at the same time, there can be unexpected long-term effects. The sum of all the individual parts - that all individuals will ultimately end up financially better off as house prices keep rising - does not necessarily play out in the final equation. To insist that it always will is a fallacy of composition. Just like the Keynesian paradox of thrift: is it good and prudent for the individual to put away some savings instead of spending everything? Of course it is, it's the smart thing to do. So doesn't it logically follow that if all individuals pull back their spending to save, they'll all be better of in the long run? No, it doesn't - the compounding effect of all individuals trying to do the same thing at the same time by all reducing their spending merely drains aggregate demand, sapping away the jobs that create the income stream necessary for individuals to save in the first place, as well as simply live.

I think we need a revolution in our social awareness and attitudes. The assumption that there is no society as such, that we are merely a gaggle of individuals all struggling against each other to maximise our own self-interest has to be replaced by the understanding that we are something much more than that, and that without a sense of communal purpose, we will ultimately fall in a heap.

[Pastafarian]

To be clear, my own generation - gen X - has been just as heavily involved in making home ownership unaffordable to gen Y as the boomers have. This is not the fault of the boomers or gen X per se - they've merely been taking advantage of the opportunities available to them as individuals. When one individual does something, there are not likely to be any consequences for society at large. But when large numbers of individuals all engage in the same behaviour at the same time, there can be unexpected long-term effects. The sum of all the individual parts - that all individuals will ultimately end up financially better off as house prices keep rising - does not necessarily play out in the final equation. To insist that it always will is a fallacy of composition. Just like the Keynesian paradox of thrift: is it good and prudent for the individual to put away some savings instead of spending everything? Of course it is, it's the smart thing to do. So doesn't it logically follow that if all individuals pull back their spending to save, they'll all be better of in the long run? No, it doesn't - the compounding effect of all individuals trying to do the same thing at the same time by all reducing their spending merely drains aggregate demand, sapping away the jobs that create the income stream necessary for individuals to save in the first place, as well as simply live.

I think we need a revolution in our social awareness and attitudes. The assumption that there is no society as such, that we are merely a gaggle of individuals all struggling against each other to maximise our own self-interest has to be replaced by the understanding that we are something much more than that, and that without a sense of communal purpose, we will ultimately fall in a heap.

Thats more a case of older Gen Xers, I'm on the cusp of X/Y so for me plus prolonged uni study which therefore means no cash, means that myself on a single income in Canberra, basically at the moment, house ownership is just out of my grasp.

[Socky the Sock.]

.

[lisa jones]

Thats more a case of older Gen Xers, I'm on the cusp of X/Y so for me plus prolonged uni study which therefore means no cash, means that myself on a single income in Canberra, basically at the moment, house ownership is just out of my grasp.

That's very typical of left wing ideology upbringing actually. Shame really.