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 (5,607 Views)
If you read the rest of the comments there, it looks like Aristophrenia cops quite a bagging for its lunacy, whilst Leith asks numerous times where he claimed it as HIS theory
You really need to seek professional help, stringbug.
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.
It is not being put forward as merely an opinion, it is being put forward as though it were his original idea - in other words, he came up with the theory that baby boomers will depress the market, and is therefore taking credit for the idea.
He then goes on to reinforce this exact idea by stating that the BIS clearance bank reinforces his theory. He is claiming credit where it is not due. It is absolutely NOT a slip up, since he is claiming many things in the media about himself in the media - its a beat up, and unnecessary, but above all blatantly obvious.
If he said, he subscribed to the hypothesis, or agreed with the theory - then fine. But he didn't he said "My hypothesis" - and that is very, very different.
There are a lot of issues being raised regarding the legitimacy of Macrobusiness and this is definitely part of the general push to bulk up their credibility - he could have simply acknowledged it as being someone elses and he was simply using the term as you suggest, but he did not - he went on to claim he was the first to raise it in Australia regarding negative gearing, therefore it is his unique hypothesis - even though there are several hundred articles predating his claim to the initial hypothesis in Australia.
His response, that he was in fact the first, PROVES he was trying to claim it as his own idea.
No getting around it - was blatant plagiarism. The issue with it is that there was no need to do it, he writes well and puts forward good points, claiming credit for something he clearly did not come up with on his own, or at least first is just petty.
It is not being put forward as merely an opinion, it is being put forward as though it were his original idea - in other words, he came up with the theory that baby boomers will depress the market, and is therefore taking credit for the idea.
He then goes on to reinforce this exact idea by stating that the BIS clearance bank reinforces his theory. He is claiming credit where it is not due. It is absolutely NOT a slip up, since he is claiming many things in the media about himself in the media - its a beat up, and unnecessary, but above all blatantly obvious.
If he said, he subscribed to the hypothesis, or agreed with the theory - then fine. But he didn't he said "My hypothesis" - and that is very, very different.
There are a lot of issues being raised regarding the legitimacy of Macrobusiness and this is definitely part of the general push to bulk up their credibility - he could have simply acknowledged it as being someone elses and he was simply using the term as you suggest, but he did not - he went on to claim he was the first to raise it in Australia regarding negative gearing, therefore it is his unique hypothesis - even though there are several hundred articles predating his claim to the initial hypothesis in Australia.
His response, that he was in fact the first, PROVES he was trying to claim it as his own idea.
No getting around it - was blatant plagiarism. The issue with it is that there was no need to do it, he writes well and puts forward good points, claiming credit for something he clearly did not come up with on his own, or at least first is just petty.
You are a hard man to please audas, regardless of which name you blog under.
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
You are a hard man to please audas, regardless of which name you blog under.
I suspect that's the troll's modus operandi, Peter.
Well doc you post in both places, so you would have seen some huge swipes taken at myself and others on both sites, all centred on a holier than thou stance, whilst claiming double anonimity.
I find that curious, don't you?
Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
His response, that he was in fact the first, PROVES he was trying to claim it as his own idea.
Quite, Leith distances himself from ALL his apologists (both on MB and here) by insisting that the hypothesis is his alone and not others' and confirming that he accepts my interpretation is fully as he intended. He writes here to confirm it to be his hypothesis:
Quote:
You obviously cannot read as I said “my hypothesis”, which relates to the Baby Boomers selling-off negatively geared investment properties – an Australian phenomenom (since negatively gearing is allowed in only a small number of nations).
Clearly, he is there reaffirming the hypothesis as his own. He is clearly disputing his apologist supporters who are claiming he only meant it as a belief of his. He has confirmed the hypothesis to be his own. In the above excuse he couples the hypothesis with "negatively geared investment" despite not mentioning negative investment at all in the original blog. The man yet again reveals himself to be a serially devious player. He never acknowledges his errors and in this case he has even rejected the explanation for his error offered by his supporters and stubbornly sticks to his original contention that the hypothesis is his own. The issue is not just one of semantics as suggested by zaph. UE claims the hypothesis to be his.
Im slightly lost strindberg, if someone writes my 'hypothesis' in any assignment/paper, does it have to completely 100% original to anything that has ever been 'thought' of before?
Clearly, he is there reaffirming the hypothesis as his own. He is clearly disputing his apologist supporters who are claiming he only meant it as a belief of his.
Van Onselens apologists, are worse than Keens apologists -- even though Keen wore a t-shirt conceding he was wrong, his apologists still say he was right!!
Yet, at least Keen, had the integrity to admit he was wrong -- van Onselen never admits his errors!!
Van Onselens apologists, are worse than Keens apologists -- even though Keen wore a t-shirt conceding he was wrong, his apologists still say he was right!!
Yet, at least Keen, had the integrity to admit he was wrong -- van Onselen never admits his errors!!
He has something in common with Strindberg then. Maybe they should learn to love one another through their common traits while celebrating their differences.
Im slightly lost strindberg, if someone writes my 'hypothesis' in any assignment/paper, does it have to completely 100% original to anything that has ever been 'thought' of before?
No, that would be pedantic. But Onselen precisely defined his hypothesis thus:
Quote:
my hypothesis is that Australia’s baby boomer generation ........... will gradually become net sellers of Australian housing as they enter retirement, thereby acting to push down home prices in the process.
Absolutely none of that hypothesis was initiated by Onselen. The hypothesis, as he defined it, is simply that boomers will become net sellers and this will reduce prices. All of that hypothesis, 100% of it, was published years before Onselen even left school.
When challenged, Onselen deceitfully introduced the qualification that he was speaking specifically of negatively geared investment properties - presumably asserting that he was the first to construct the hypothesis with this qualification. Examination of the blog will reveal that he made no such qualification when he claimed the hypothesis to be his own. He clearly added the qualification in an attempt to wriggle out of his hole and avoid apologising and correcting his false claim.
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