Prediction - Solution to Housing Affordability is ...

... a forced crash of the market.

Yes, I hate to say it, but the only real solution to housing affordability is that ALL housing becomes cheaper and the only way that will happen if we have a massive crash in prices.

Hey, we all know it to be true. Affordability needs to be $100-200K cheaper than it currently is. How do you get there? Well, almost ALL options have the same affect - they force down prices EVERYWHERE.

If you flood the market with cheap land, what happens? Everyone goes and buys the cheap stuff, forcing it higher but in doing so, they desert the current market, forcing it lower. So, we all KNOW that govts WON'T provide cheap land because they'll be accused of causing the crash.

So, all I can assume is that they're simply waiting for it to implode - which is true of any market (govt doesn't go in and buy shares to keep the stock market happy) - no, the market will correct on its own, and I suspect that's what we're seeing know - encouraged by govt. We'll soon hit a tipping point, we'll have our own sub-prime, the economy will slow, China will stop spending, the US will collapse. Whatever the cause, it will trigger a huge problem in housing and the market will collapse.

Actually, that creates an interesting problem. If people start baling out of mortgages, they still need a roof over their heads - so they rent. But the rental market is already saturated and some probably can't afford the rents. So that will either force some investment properties to become fragile or banks will be forced into the property management market to recoup SOME income on their failed investments. Each event will spiral down on the other.

Fun, fun, fun...

Gender Bias

On RN's "Australia Talks" yesterday, the discussion was on domestic violence but what seemed to bubble to the surface was gender bias. The same is true for raising children and things like maternity leave - i.e. this is an issue for females.

Bollocks. If anything's clear from the discussion, its that there we shouldn't stereotype these issues and every case is different. Let me give an example. Say a mother wants to actively pursue her career and has a supporting husband who would be happy to play caregiver. Why aren't we arguing equally for his right to be paid to stay at home? Similarly, women are just as good at domestic violence - not so much physically, but mental abuse.

The point is, there are problems and they need to be addressed. By giving them a gender bias, you tend to alienate the other side (particularly those with a conservative bias - poor bastards) which then turns the issue into a hot potato. The resultant affect of that - nothing gets done.

So please, take out the emotive gender language and focus on the problem. Violence against partners be they male, female, same sex, etc. Providing care for our children be it home care from a parent or family member, a home care "mum", child care, etc. We should value the decision of others and ensure their interests are looked after.

Prediction - Return to Social Politics

Here's my boldest prediction for a while.

We're about to implode! All Western economies are about to have a MASSIVE crash (driven by god know how many potential bombs - Housing Deflation, CDO's, Sub-Prime Markets, Chinese "Recession", Resources Bust) - whatever the trigger, the knock on consequence to most western societies will be massive.

• Thousands will loose their homes
• Unemployment will skyrocket
• Housing prices will plummet

I think you can see where this is heading - who's going to suffer the pain? You and me.

Thus the prediction AWAY from selfish politics and individualism. There will be a massive loss of confidence in business and people will wake up to the realisation of socialism.

My only concern - we go too far left. We've already swung too far to the right and see where it's taken us - so lets hope the backlash isn't as severe.

So, when will it happen? Well, lets offer some suggestions/triggers:

• Nov/Dec 2007 - Sub-prime Crisis in US extends it's TRUE reach
• Aug 2008 - China shuts down spending after "best ever Olympics"
• Oct 2008 - US Invades Iran to prop up US republicans

It's coming folks - batten down the hatches...

Thoughts - Housing Affordability

I've had this in my mind for a while, but a recent article on the ABC website finally pushed me to write something.

So, why are houses so unaffordable?

I think there are some obvious reasons:

• Greed (those who can borrow are buying up big time) - which means,
• Negative Gearing is part of the problem
• Personal Expectation - we all want McMansion's and not happy with something smaller
• (Historically) Low interest rates
• Greed(=Debt) is Good

It's these last two that I suspect are our biggest concerns. Why? Well, when interest rates go up (and they will eventually), the debt load currently in place will prove to be unsustainable and the resultant collapse will be horrific.

So, is there a solution? Well, perhaps Negative Gearing has had it's day? Problem with this is that there still appears to be a supply problem (i.e. there are still plenty of people wanting to rent) - so killing off one problem would probably just create another. Oh, and the impact it would have on house prices would be a precipitous as higher interest rates.

So what else? The article mentioned "Densification" and the pushback against it from the likes of "Save Our Suburbs". The solution they say is to allow growth on the urban fringe (where it will eventually be uninhabitably thanks to rising fuel prices) - but what gets me is this is classic Nimbyism. I've got my nirvana - go make a mess somewhere else.

We're experiencing a degree of inner city development in Townsville, but NONE of it has been affordable - but why? What's driving these developments into ridiculous dollars? Maybe we need more of it (and increase supply) - there's certainly plenty of demand. Another problem, I'll suggest, is design. Many of the unit designs are shockers (make poor use of the land), 6-packs are part of that problem (historically), but even half-decent developments are problematic because the block next door can look completely different. Why's this a problem? Well, after a while it looks like a dogs breakfast. Take a look at some of the industrial developments in Townsville (e.g. Garbutt). Every building is different and if an epileptic drove through there, they'd have a fit.

Compare that to European cities where ENTIRE blocks are moulded out of the same design. Yes, I know that can be stifling, but any measure of higher-density must surely meet this criteria.

So, what I'd like to see is more of a "suburban block based vision" established where density is completely redesigned across a larger area.

Okay, I'm starting to ramble on this one. More ideas later...

Thoughts - Pre-emptive (Heart) Attack

You know, I used to get bemused by the Heart Foundations flood advertising it started a couple of years ago claiming that "their tick was not for sale". It all seemed rather pointless with so few products (particularly mainstream ones) using the tick.

Then it suddenly became obvious ... when McDonald's and McCain's Pizza all started announcing their "heart foundation tick of approvals".

Was this a pre-emptive campaign to garner credibility for a label ahead of selling out to the highest bidder?

Thoughts: Pell & Hell

I think we were all shocked to see Cardinal Pell's intervention in the NSW vote for Stem Cell research. Questions have been raised whether or not he should be charged with making a threat against a sitting member so as to influence their vote - an offence in all states in OZ.

So here's my two bob's worth on the issue:

• If it was a threat, then he should be charged.
• Mr Pell seems to think that the MPs are voting for themselves and ignoring the fact that they are in fact voting as proxy for the citizens in their electorate. I for one would be aghast that my MP was putting his personal beliefs ahead of the wishes of the electorate.
• If this sort of thing is to continue, then perhaps we need to take these decisions out of the hands of the MPs and return it to the people by way of referendum. I'd like to see him work his smarmy ways on a bunch of anonymous voters...
  

Suggestion - It's Just Not Cricket...

There's been a lot of bluster RE: the looming tour of Australia to Zimbabwe. Apart from the fact that the tour shouldn't be going ahead, what peeves me about this is how the Australian Government seems to want to defer blame onto Cricket Australia than wear any criticism themselves.

If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, the argument goes like this. The Government is trying to convince Cricket Australia to withdraw from the tour (ABC News Article) however, but pulling out unilaterally, CA is likely to incur a $2m fine, possible sanction from other cricket countries (affecting future income) and likely lawsuits for losses. In response, the government has said it will pay the $2m fine.

However, if I'm reading what CA are saying, if they are unable to tour because of the actions taken by a third party (i.e. if the Australian Government imposes sanctions and stops them from going), then they'll be liable for NOTHING! Jack squat! Nix!

So, what we're seeing here is the government trying to play politics through a sporting organisation because it itself is too weak wristed to take action!!!

In my mind, it's easy to work out who the bad guys are here...

EDIT (4/6): And as we've now worked it, this is exactly what the ACB was eluding to and, to their credit, Howard's lot have seen fit to intervene and ban the Aussie team from touring.

How About: Fair Pay?

With much of Howard's "fair pay" rehetoric ringing foul in many's ears, how about we follow the Norwegian model of publishing everyone's taxable income each year (see BBC Article)?

This would allow workers to compare income with their colleagues and to stop the mushroom syndrome from being applied to the wage bargaining process. What a way to stop driving income to the bottom. Make it public information!!!

Edit (4/6): And we see it again in today's article RE: Women being affected by AWA's (story on Radio National's "Life Matter's" this morning). Folks, let just make it all be public (the AWA's) and all this will go away!!!

Equality?

I sometimes wonder whether the Feminism movement would be better to strive for "Equality" as much as they do for "women only" rights. From my perspective, much of what they're asking for are equally valid goals for many men (okay, some of us) as it is women.

I crave an environment where, as parents, we can access affordable childcare or, if we so wish, offer "parental" leave so EITHER parent can choose to stay at home for a period. Surely it comes to the circumstances of the individual? In our case, I'm firmly entrenched in a career - so if I opt out for a period, the impact is unlikely to be severe. However, my wife is breaking into a new career where every foothold is important. So why can't I take "paternity leave" and care for the children so my wife can continue to bolster her career? Taking a one-side only view on things is going to alienate many men - because they feel like they're being left out.

The same now applies to wages. I'd like to see more transparency to wages generally as, in this day and age, we're all equally screwed. In fact, I'd LOVE to see the Norwegian (or was it some other scandinavian country?) system brought in whereby ALL incomes are made public available. That way you can check what your colleague is getting and thus you have a leg to stand on asking for more.

Economic Rationalism & Competition Policy vs Reality

I've long argued against some of the idiocy that arose from Howard's "Competition Policy" - a lot of it stank of economic rationalism for the sake of idology - the market knows best.

Classic case in point was the Dairy Industry. Now deregulated, many once prosperous dairy regions (Malanda, Mackay, Sunshine Coast, etc) were left at the mercy of supposedly "efficient" Victorian farmers. So we now are flooded by cheap Victorian milk whilst the local suppliers struggle to survive.

Yet this decision alone smacked of hypocracy. The so called "efficiency" these farmers gain have come from MASSIVE water subsidies whereby incredibly cheap water is supplied into regions where previously dairy was not viable.

However, my biggest concern was one of staking too much in one hand. Whilst it may be great we can get cheap milk from one region to supply Australia, it also means that one major disaster has the power to throw milk supplies into jeopardy. The obvious one would be an outbreak of a disease like Foot & Mouth. With thousands of head of Cattle having to be destroyed, the milk market would go into meltdown. An unlikely scenario, but with similar outbreaks in the UK, it seemed like it could happen.

Well, we've now apparently got armageddon looming. We've been told that, unless there is significant rain in the catchments of the Murray Darling basin within 6-8 weeks, the draw of water for irrigation will stop. That means all that lovely cheap milk production will likely come to an end.

Let's hope that Malanda haven't been savaged too badly by Howard's disasterous policies!!!

Prediction - YouTube = Google's Demise

I've been meaning to post this one for a while...

I have to say that I was stunned by Google's idiocy buying YouTube for an astronomical amount of money (what was it? $2b?). Is this a sign that the money hungry been counters are now in charge?

Google has always inspired because of it's ability to create wonderful web applications out of nothing: Gmail, Google Earth, Writely, etc. Yet it went out to market and purchased YouTube - why the sudden change of direction? Worse, it's hardly a unique idea - proven by the vast number of competitors in the market - and worse, it's vapourware. YouTube is only fashionable - it's not going to be a long-term product. What happens when the next YouTube hits the market? Google will be left with a $2b dead duck around its neck.

Worse, it now appears to have become a target because now there's someone to blame. Previously, valuing YouTube was difficult so there was really no-one to sue. Now Viacom et al have an easy target - one of the biggest tech stocks in the market!!!

So, will this really bring Google to its knees? Time will tell I suppose...

What The? Same Survey - Two Interpretations?

I'm a little staggered to work out how this happened:

BBC - Pessimism 'growing among Iraqis' vs The OZ: It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis

How can the same survey be seen in completely different ways? "Lies, damned lies and statistics" I suppose?

Double Speak - Telstra's "NowWeAreTalking.com.au"

Ah, the nerve of the biggest monopoly in the country!

We received a brochure from Telstra today regarding their propaganda site www.nowwearetalking.com.au which is arguing for regulation to be removed so Telstra can provide proper Broadband for "Australian's".

And how does it propose that Telstra should be "unshackled"? By regulating the price of ULL so they can fuck off all the leaches stealing their cream in the capitals. What a load of old shit!

Don't you love it? It's called competition Telstra - you guys bought into this shit, now wear it. They use language like "our competitors like cherry picking" and "they make good profits from the city customers" and then argue this is reducing their ability to meet the obligations of the Universal Service Obligation.

They even have a whole section arguing that Telstra shareholders are subsiding 90% of the USO! Fuck you idiots - it was hardly a fucking secret when you took this on!

They also complain of having to "hand over" the ULL to their competitors. Look you idiots, the network is a national monopoly - if you don't like this responsibility, then sell the network back to the government and let them run it. You can stay in shitty services because that's about all your good for.

God they pricks have some gaul!!! Made worse by all these "notable Australian's" (all of whom have significant stakeholdings in Telstra) arguing the case for reduced regulation.

So, here's my spin on what will happen. If Howard is returned, the regulation will evaporate. We're already seeing an outright, government sanctioned attack on ISPs so stripping back the regs will be next. Once Telstra have anchored themselves and won back their monopoly, just watch how quickly they stick out their hands for regional/rural service provision. "Oh, it costs shareholders too much still" or "if you want national coverage, it should be paid for by the nation".

Oh, and I'm still waiting for Countrywide to be shutdown - my guess it will come once the regs are removed...

Suggestion - Parity Pricing Road vs Rail

Why is it that the Rail industry is only group seemingly forced to pay for "Externalities"?

• For example, the UK govt agrees to push up Lorry Tares to 40tonnes. The knock on, every bridge in the UK needs to be strengthened. Who pays? The trucking industry? No, the Rail industry!
• In Qld, a ruling is made that QR must fence railway lines to "protect children" (or some rot). As a consequence, QR has outlaid MILLIONS on fencing throughout the state. Yet these same fences often run along side busy roadways - you guessed it - that are UNFENCED!

We see this sort of bullshit time and time again and then there's the right wing mantra - full cost recovery - viz, the railway must pay its own way. Yeah, like the truck industry "pays its own way" - the whole lot is massively subsidised.

But I have a solution. Whilst road users continue to enjoy toll free roads, the rail users should enjoy the same privileges. What I suggest is a simple flat "vehicle" registration charge so that the more a "vehicle" is used, the more profitable it is - which is exactly the same logic that sees trucks plying our roads everyday. If EVERY truck journey incurred the same horrendous costs that rail users are levied, watch them clear the roads faster than you can imagine.

So, lets stop the imbalance and lets:

• Open Rail to FULL Competition (operators)
• The only charge on rails should be a per vehicle charge
• Make the State fund the contruction, maintenance and care of the railway network (rails and signals) but get out of operations (i.e. sell off the bit of QR that drives and operates trains).

And then sit back, watch rail prosper and watch the trucks leave the roads in the thousands!!!

What The: Australia Post Advertising?

Okay, what's going on here?

Over the last week, we've had a barrage of ads for Australia Post - a different ad for every day of the week. They're pretty good ads (as far as ads go) but what the bloody hell are they for?

Aussie Post have a monopoly (well, they currently do), so why the need to advertise? My guess is as follows:

a) Howard is about to strip Aussie Post of its monopoly and "deregulate" the postal system in OZ. Tony (Blair) did it in Blighty, so it must be good for us.
b) Howard is about to sell off Aussie Post.
c) Both the above is going to happen.

Is this going to slip in undetected? Time will tell...

EDIT (4/6): Oh, why am I not surprised to see this ...???

Why: Airports don't have clocks?

Why is it that anywhere you really need a clock, none can be found?

Case in point - Airports. You regularly hear reports of folks not arriving at a depature gate "in time" for a flight. Yet, have you ever tried to determine the time in an Airport? I cannot find a normal clock ANYWHERE in ANY airport that I've ever visited. Sure, there are clocks, but only if you are standing in front of the departures or arrivals screens.

But who does that? Most folk are sitting down watching the world go by - and where there is never a clock in sight.

Idea - Ministry vs Department

It's long bothered me how, at every invokation of government or cabinet reshuffle, the powers that be see fit to rebrand every department - DEVETIR becomes DITR becomes DETIR becomes DEVTR becomes ... as the mix of Departments keeps changing.

But why? Why do we waste thousands on new logo's, new letter head, new everything just to reflect a new political expediency?

My suggestion - why not leave the departments unchanged unless there really is going to be a true amalgumation. So leave them at their bear minimums. The Department of:

• Employment
• Training
• Education
• Main Roads
• Police
• etc

And then simply create political ministries that link them together:

• Ministry of Employment, Training & Industrial Relations
• Ministry of Police & Corrective Services

That way only the politicial paperwork changes but the Departmental stuff doesn't have to. From a business or citizen perspective, we don't care if the government of the day sees fit to amalgumate functions, we still want to deal with the Department.

Yes, it may not always be the case and there may be good reason for joining functions - but if that's the case then perhaps the belong together - but I think it could save us a small fortune in renaming costs.

Prediction - The Disguise of the 99-Year Lease

A quick one - these 99-year leases the libs are touting as the solution to all of Aboriginal Australia's problems.

The argument goes that by allowing 99-year leases, suddenly banks will borrow money to people living on the Dole so they can build a house.

Who are they kidding?

My guess - it's all about land rights and tenure to the land. I reckon they've had legal opinion that if the traditional owners relinguish the land via a lease, then they'll end up loosing their land rights.

Just my prediction anyhow...

Thoughts - Work "Choices"

I'm really amazed at the stupidity of people who are throwing away allowances for short-term gain. You know the deal, drop penalty rates, over-time, etc for a sizeable increase in salary.

It looks really nice upfront - until you get burnt.

I know of a recent example where exactly this occurred in a MAJOR (ASX100) employer. A bunch of IT support staff accepted a $4000 increase in salary in leui of overtime, penalty rates and on-call allowances to provide 24x7 IT support. Up front it looked fantastic.

Problem was, they received no further increases in Salary for nearly 5 years!

See the problem? That $4000 is now a $0 increase thanks to inflation - and they no longer have any penalties, overtime or on-call provisions.

People - OPEN YOUR EYES - stop looking at the short term and think long term. What appears good on paper today could well bite you in the arse in a few years time!

Howard must be laughing all the way to the polls!!!!

Suggestion - Abrams M1A1 in Queensland...

I was interested to read a letter to the editor today from Major General Ian Gordon, Deputy Chief of Army, arguing that the Abrams M1A1 was the right choice of replacement tank for the army (the fact they're second hand, too heavy and too wide).

One of his arguments is that they can be transported by rail from Darwin to other parts of the country. But lets see what that means in Queensland:

Let's compare the two beasts:

M1A1	w3.64 m	l 7.92 m	h 2.43 m	63.0 tonnes
Leopard	w3.37 m	l 9.54 m	h 2.62 m	42.5 tonnes

The concern here is the additional width (nearly 30cm) and weight (nearly 20 tonnes). In Queensland, the Leopard tanks can be moved by rail around the country - seeing a stand of flatbeds outside of the area north of Rocky is not uncommon - but with an additional 30cm to cater for, I suspect this will be too big for our loading gauge.

Which means they'll need to be moved by road - which will mean significant inconvenience on our lovely narrow highways - let alone the damage caused by the additional 20 tonnes rolling overhead.

Good idea? Not in Queensland I suspect.