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 (5,606 Views)
Strindberg- You seriously need a hobby, I rarely read Macro but did today. Seems you are trying to derail the main thrust of the article. Do you have an opinion on the Demographic shift?I think most on this forum know you have an unhealthy obsession with LVO.
Enjoy The Ride!
Enjoy The Ride!
The case for individual freedom rests chiefly on the recognition of the inevitable and universal ignorance of all of us concerning a great many of the factors on which the achievement of our ends and welfare depend. It is because every individual knows so little and, in particular, because we rarely know which of us knows best that we trust the independent and competitive efforts of many to induce the emergence of what we shall want when we see it. Humiliating to human pride as it may be, we must recognize that the advance and even the preservation of civilization are dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents to happen.” ― Friedrich A. von Hayek
"I, on the other hand, am a fully rounded human being with a degree from the university of life, a diploma from the school of hard knocks, and three gold stars from the kindergarten of getting the shit kicked out of me." Blackadder.
In a scientific sense a hypothesis does not have to be original. The following would be perfectly acceptable:
My hypothesis is that F = m x a
bla bla bla
I conclude that my experiment proved my hypothesis.
I am not claiming I came up with the idea of the 2nd law of motion before Newton, I am merely stating that it is something that I will be testing. Same same for the guy writing the blog, he was merely stating that idea as his starting point and I'm assuming he then set about to prove it some how. Nothing wrong with the use of the phrase 'my hypothesis'.
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.
This is arrant nonsense.
Kindly provide *any* authoritative source for the proposition that "my hypothesis" automatically represents a claim of intellectual originality with regard to the concept in discussion. Certainly "my belief" implies no such claim of originality, as essentially identical individual expressions of personal belief, from new and old adherents alike, are often the touchstone of charismatic religions, whose (collective) belief systems have long been established.
It is "my hypothesis" that this is easily your most idiotic MB-bashing thread yet, Strindberg. Unsurprisingly, I find that others have already expressed similar sentiments in this thread. But that does not trouble me, as I was merely affirming belief in your idiocy, rather than claiming exclusive rights to having observed it.
In a scientific sense a hypothesis does not have to be original. The following would be perfectly acceptable:
My hypothesis is that F = m x a
bla bla bla
I conclude that my experiment proved my hypothesis.
I am not claiming I came up with the idea of the 2nd law of motion before Newton, I am merely stating that it is something that I will be testing. Same same for the guy writing the blog, he was merely stating that idea as his starting point and I'm assuming he then set about to prove it some how. Nothing wrong with the use of the phrase 'my hypothesis'.
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.
Basically, CJ and L VO do the same thing... except that L VO probably makes more predictions which he then selectively reminds us of when/if they come true, where as CJ puts forward other peoples thoughts, and then brands them as his own predictions if they come true.
Nice to see you are balanced in your observation of both these guys... except of course, that your complaints of CJ are almost mute.
Kindly provide *any* authoritative source for the proposition that "my hypothesis" automatically represents a claim of intellectual originality with regard to the concept in discussion. Certainly "my belief" implies no such claim of originality, as essentially identical individual expressions of personal belief, from new and old adherents alike, are often the touchstone of charismatic religions, whose (collective) belief systems have long been established.
It is "my hypothesis" that this is easily your most idiotic MB-bashing thread yet, Strindberg. Unsurprisingly, I find that others have already expressed similar sentiments in this thread. But that does not trouble me, as I was merely affirming belief in your idiocy, rather than claiming exclusive rights to having observed it.
I'm surprised that you and other apologists for LVO are continuing to use a defence which LVO himself has not used.
LVO in his blog defined "my hypothesis" in the context of boomers downsizing. He writes:
Quote:
According to the article, baby boomers transitioning into retirement are increasingly seeking to downsize in order to free-up cash to fund their lifestyles, which is in turn crimping house price growth:
He then makes his hypothesis claim in that context:
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.
That claim is made in the context of downsizing. That hypothesis was published by others many years ago. His claim "my hypothesis" claim was rightfully challenged. LVO's response to that challenge was not to acknowledge that he was just expressing a belief. His response was to insist on the phrase "my hypothesis" and ownership of the hypothesis, and add the qualification that his hypothesis refers to the sale of negatively geared property. He wrote here in response to the challenge:
Quote:
You obviously cannot read as I said “my hypothesis”, which relates to the Baby Boomers selling-off negatively geared investment properties ...
So he initially stated his hypothesis in the context of downsizing. He then restated his hypothesis as relating to the sale of negatively geared properties. Those are two entirely different hypotheses. There can be no negative gearing associated with downsizing a family home. LVO is sticking to his claim that the hypothesis belongs to him and relates to negatively geared sales rather than downsizing. This is obfuscatory deceit for which he has extensive form.
In a scientific sense a hypothesis does not have to be original. The following would be perfectly acceptable:
My hypothesis is that F = m x a
bla bla bla
I conclude that my experiment proved my hypothesis.
I am not claiming I came up with the idea of the 2nd law of motion before Newton, I am merely stating that it is something that I will be testing. Same same for the guy writing the blog, he was merely stating that idea as his starting point and I'm assuming he then set about to prove it some how. Nothing wrong with the use of the phrase 'my hypothesis'.
NO the point is that if a scientist said "My Hypothesis" is that an infinite amount of energy is required to travel at the speed of light, and therefore nothing can ever travel faster, I call "My Hypothesis" the General Theory of relativity and is represented as E=mc2 then people would be falling all over themselves to point out that this is in fact Einsteins hypothesis and it has been appropriated.
If on the other hand as is being said by all and sundry it was merely said, THE hypothesis of E=MC2 then fine.
There is no doubt that ascribing My Hypothesis to the ideas represented, and the subsequent statements were all designed to present the idea as unique and original to the author of the article - none. And that is genuinely dishonest.
I don't have any gripe with the website or the author, just the inappropriate appropriation and then the lack of acknowledgment that it was not his original idea at all but a well accepted general idea that has been in circulation for a long time, well before he ever brought it up.
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