Why don't you apply some serious scrutiny to it then, and try to find out?
Another point... last time NG was removed, rents spiked in Sydney and Perth, cities with low vacancy rates at the time. But rents were flat in Melbourne and Adelaide, and fell in Brisbane. Some people use this to claim that NG does not place downward pressure on rents, because rents didn't rise everywhere when it was removed. The problem with that theory is it does not consider what would have happened if NG had not been removed. Perhaps rents would have fallen in Brisbane anyway, due to an oversupply, and removal of NG simply reduced the magnitude of that fall, rather than completely reversing it.
We can also see from the chart that a few years after NG was reintroduced, rents fell in every city, and kept falling (in real terms) for many years. A few years is probably how long it would take for investors to start getting back into the market again, and adding to rental supply in a substantial way. However, again there is no way to prove that NG was responsible for that fall in rents, because we don't know what would have happened without NG. Maybe rents would have fallen anyway.
And this is a key problem with the document (which Kenny has also mentioned... "the author has no way of controlling other extraneous or confounding variables in the economy"). Basically, we can't confirm that NG does or does not have a particular effect on the property market because we have no way of knowing what would have happened to the property market if NG wasn't there. There are far too many different variables acting on the property market at any one time to be able to isolate one variable and prove it is having a particular effect. All theories about the impact of NG are unprovable. So you can attempt to apply 'serious scrutiny' to my theory if you wish, but neither of us can prove anything either way.
The only things we can 'prove' are some of the statistics, which Strindberg has provided, and then we must draw our own conclusions and form our own theories based on this data.
I would be more keen to support/ disprove your theory when you have enough hard evidence to substantiate it.
as you point out yourself, it is all conjecture from you...
Correlations have already been (reasonably) discounted as being a valid form of evidence for scientific discussion by Ken... Putting this chart up and offering conjecture on top of it is just more of the same...
As I explained, it is impossible to prove or disprove, so whether or not you are keen to do so is irrelevant.
Why is it impossible to prove ?
If it has such a large effect, it should be measurable no ?
I would have thought you, more than many here, would insist on hard data to prove any theories before embracing them.... guess that is only for other people's theories.
If it has such a large effect, it should be measurable no ?
I would have thought you, more than many here, would insist on hard data to prove any theories before embracing them.... guess that is only for other people's theories.
As I explained to you before, a theory about motivations can't be proven other than by asking the person/organisation what their motivation is.
Even then you might not get an honest answer.
Think about it. If you still don't understand, ask me again and I'll try to help you out with some examples.
Yes, that's all fine if the theory is measurable and testable - for example, a theory that a dropped ball will fall to the ground can easily be tested and proved. However a theory that someone is motivated to do something for a particular reason can never be tested without the co-operation of that person. For example, I might see you drinking water and theorise that you did this because you were thirsty, but I can never prove this because I can't read your mind, and if I asked you why you were drinking the water I have no way of knowing whether you will tell me the truth.
Similarly it is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing. Motivation can't be proved.
Yes, that's all fine if the theory is measurable and testable - for example, a theory that a dropped ball will fall to the ground can easily be tested and proved. However a theory that someone is motivated to do something for a particular reason can never be tested without the co-operation of that person. For example, I might see you drinking water and theorise that you did this because you were thirsty, but I can never prove this because I can't read your mind, and if I asked you why you were drinking the water I have no way of knowing whether you will tell me the truth.
Similarly it is impossible to prove why a particular government supports negative gearing. Motivation can't be proved.
Surely even you can understand this?
I understand this fully thanks again for the attempted smug remark. Still a waste of energy IMHO, but I agree, it's a better investment to look smug than to follow through with real effort.
Do you understand that real motivation that results in investment can be measured ?
There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?
Seriously, either peruse this theory, or let it go, it's up to you... Regardless, smugness and smart arse comments do not further your theory at all.
Don't worry, I think I know the real reason you don't wish to spend the effort doing the research... it's unlikely that any data found would support it... It can be our little secret
<tag> shadow demands data but can not deliver <tag>
Do you understand that real motivation that results in investment can be measured ?
There are numerous examples, you can google them if you like... or would you like me to do that for you too ?
Yes, please. Personally I don't believe anyone can ever prove what someone else's motive is, but if you've got some examples to show how we can prove government motive in this case then please do post your examples (or explain how to do it yourself, if you can).
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy