On super for housing
Doug Endersbee writes: Re. “Why the split on super for housing?” (Thursday)
Economics 101; what happens if you keep the available housing stock the same, but increase the amount of money chasing that housing stock?House prices will increase even faster.
This is simply pouring even more fuel on the already overheated housing market. How grown men and women claiming to be the prudent Economic Managers of our nation can suggest such foolishness is beyond me.
We have an artificially tight supply problem; the available land on the outskirts of major cities is not adequately serviced by mass transit and decent road infrastructure. So the demand is for property within the inside ring, within about 15 km from the CBD.
Of course it would be the same economic geniuses that probably shouted down proposals to build the infrastructure because it may involve borrowing and paying it off over many years — just like a normal business.
Somehow these morons also believe government should be run like a business, except borrowing to build quality assets and plan for the future is somehow irresponsible. Not to mention the shortsightedness of raiding the super funds.
FFS, what a weird place Australia is.
On the Adani mine
Wayne Robinson writes: Re.”Will Turnbull pander to Adani with a $900m loan?” (Wednesday)
I glanced at the front page of the Australian this morning in the supermarket with its usual partisan attack on Bill Shorten for opposing the Carmichael mine (I hope it’s true).
I don’t think it’s a negative for Bill Shorten. I think it’s very much a positive. I used to sort of like Malcolm Turnbull a long time ago. He’s been an enormous disappointment.
As an old white male, the only thing nowadays that will change my vote is the environment. Everything else is just politics.