Leith van Onselen arrogantly and falsely claims as "MY HYPOTHESIS"; The theory that downsizing baby boomers will have a negative effect on house prices
Tweet Topic Started: 24 May 2012, 11:17 AM (5,599 Views)
Leith van Onselen at it again. He now claims a theory that has been around for decades as his own. The theory he is claiming as his own is that downsizing boomers will have a negative effect on house prices. The theory may be true or false but it is certainly false that Leith created the theory as he claims.
Today on Macrobusiness he makes the absolutely false claim here:
Quote:
In a nutshell, my hypothesis is that Australia’s baby boomer generation – which comprises roughly one-quarter of the Australian population but owns nearly half of the nation’s housing assets – will gradually become net sellers of Australian housing as they enter retirement, thereby acting to push down home prices in the process.
Monumental arrogance. Fortunately a poster on MB ( a very bearish poster) has called him on his false claim here where he provides full proof of Leith van Onselen's bare faced cheek and misplaced arrogance:
Quote:
Aristophrenia May 24, 2012 at 8:19 am
I find it viscerally repugnant that you are claiming the baby boomer housing price theory as YOUR THEORY with links back to 2010.
This is a general theory which has been long and well discussed for a long, long time – the known implications of which have been talked about for more than a decade.
Its not YOUR theory, its a well known popular theory which absolutely predates your appropriation of it.
If you need any confirmation of this just set your Google search to only return results prior to 2009, or 2003, or 1995 – as i did, with hundreds of results from all over the world detailing this phenomenon.
I find this type of self aggrandizing and shameless appropriation very out of character for this website.
The study of demographics and its impact on social services, welfare, housing, employment and SPECIFICALLY realestate is a well researched field and has been an ongoing concern for countries all over the world.
Its not YOUR theory – its as common as dust mites, has been discussed ad nauseum for decades and is absolutely not new or enlightening – it is a well accepted norm of no greater insight than night follows day.
Can you give it a rest Strindberg. If we all wanted to use this forum for our personal vendettas against any public figure we had a gripe with then this forum would become very tiresome.
I can't understand what Leith has done wrong here. If he'd said it was "my contention" or "my belief" would that make it OK? What's wrong with him sharing an opinion that has been previously expressed by other commentators?
You guys are obsessed with Macrobusiness. It's amusing to watch! Keep the entertainment coming!
I can't understand what Leith has done wrong here. If he'd said it was "my contention" or "my belief" would that make it OK? What's wrong with him sharing an opinion that has been previously espoused by other commentators?
You guys are obsessed with Macrobusiness. It's amusing to watch! Keep the entertainment coming!
Simple agreement with a previously expounded hypothesis does not entitle you claim ownership of that hypothesis with the claim "my hypothesis". Leith really was trying to claim that it was his hypothesis and he gave links to his own past utterances in an attempt to justify his claim that he invented the hypothesis.
Had he simply claimed it as "my belief" that would have been fine. He could have done that if that was what he meant. He didn't do that because he wished to lay claim to ownership of the hypothesis with "my hypothesis is...".
Simple agreement with a previously expounded hypothesis does not entitle you claim ownership of that hypothesis with the claim "my hypothesis". Leith really was trying to claim that it was his hypothesis and he gave links to his own past utterances in an attempt to justify his claim that he invented the hypothesis.
Rubbish. We often say, "It's my belief that ..." or "It's my opinion that ...". Why is it any different if we say, "It's my hypothesis ..."? He did not claim exclusive ownership. This is a monumental beat-up on your part.
I find it interesting that the majority of other comments on that post highlight the same point I am about to make.
Haven't you simply misinterpreted that sentence? A hypothesis can be drawn from prior hypotheses and subsequent findings (or lack thereof) of others. It doesn't appear to me in that sentence or by linking to previous discussion that he is claiming to have invented it all by himself.
However, take one Mr Christopher Joye who makes, publishes, admits to and self-references grandiose claims of hypothetical invention.
Yet more pollution of the forum with inconsiderate separate posts about MB that could be combined into a single thread.
Rubbish. We often say, "It's my belief that ..." or "It's my opinion that ...". Why is it any different if we say, "It's my hypothesis ..."? He did not claim exclusive ownership. This is a monumental beat-up on your part.
Of course it is different. The word "my" infers belonging/ownership. It is quite correct to say "my belief" or "my opinion" where the belief or opinion belongs to the sayer. It is quite wrong to say "my hypothesis" when the hypothesis is not owned by the sayer and was previously constructed and published by someone else.
For example, it would obviously be plagiarism or worse to claim that my hypothesis is that force is equal to mass times acceleration. It may be my belief but the hypothesis would not be mine.
The point is that Leith really intended to claim brownie points for the hypothesis which he may genuinely have believed he invented. He has now been educated in to the fact that he came late to the issue and he has no right to claim the hypothesis as his own.
Of course it is different. The word "my" infers belonging/ownership. It is quite correct to say "my belief" or "my opinion" where the belief or opinion belongs to the sayer. It is quite wrong to say "my hypothesis" when the hypothesis is not owned by the sayer and was previously constructed and published by someone else.
For example, it would obviously be plagiarism or worse to claim that my hypothesis is that force is equal to mass times acceleration. It may be my belief but the hypothesis would not be mine.
The point is that Leith really intended to claim brownie points for the hypothesis which he may genuinely have believed he invented. He has now been educated in to the fact that he came late to the issue.
My hypothesis is that you are a pedantic physicist unable to distinguish the colloquial use of 'hypothesis' by an economics blogger from formal scientific use.
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