|
>> >> The ACT government owns all land (all ACT land is lease-hold, not free-hold),
>> >> and keeps land prices artificially high by refusing to release more land for
>> >> people to use (apparently affordable housing is a bad idea). >> It seems like a peculiar land arrangement that we have here in the ACT. Can you
>> speculate on the size of the effect that land release and restrictive building
>> regulations have on the price of housing? I wouldn't even try to put a dollar value on it. Lease-hold is certainly an
inferior form of ownership than free-hold, and I confident that affects the
price. However the effect is outweighed many times over by the deliberate government
manipulation of the land price which the system enables. >> Mises said, towards the end of his book "Planning for Freedom" (1952), "At
>> least fifty per cent of the voters are women, most of them housewives or
>> prospective housewives. To the common sense of these women a program of low
>> prices will make a strong appeal. They will certainly cast their ballot for
>> candidates who proclaim: Do away peremptorily with all policies and measures
>> destined to enhance prices above the height of the unhampered market!... What
>> we want is low prices." Actually I don't think it works that way. Canberra has the highest median
income in the country thanks to their ability to help themselves to everyone
else's tax money. Accordingly, the majority of people in Canberra own their own
homes. People who have bought and are paying off their own homes don't want
lower house prices - they want higher house prices because they want to feel
rich. >> That is a nice appeal libertarians may make to utilitarians for lower prices
>> for household goods and appliances, but with a relatively high proportion of
>> home-ownership in Australia there is strong interest from the electorate to
>> drive up land and housing prices. The logical arguments in favor of the lower house prices which a free market
system would bring don't carry any weight with these people:
- "But if all houses dropped in price, you could afford to upgrade to a
bigger house" doesn't carry any weight because Canberrans measure their
self worth by what others have. Envious people feel better when those around
them have less - not when they have more.
- "But your children will want to buy houses - don't you want them to
be able to afford them?" Doesn't carry any weight either. Bear in mind
we are talking Baby Boomers here - the most spoilt, pampered and selfish
generation in the history of mankind.
We see similar things in other parts of the country too. The idea that
allowing cheap imports will bring Australian wages down terrifies people. The
obvious argument "If your wage goes down by 5% and the cost of everything
you currently buy goes down by 10%, aren't you better off?" carries no
weight because they compare themselves to other countries. One Chardonnay leftie I
explained that to objected to it on the basis that it would lower the effective
exchange rate, and they couldn't afford to go to Europe anymore. .. I'm not sure that the people on Struggle Street would give a damn. >> Do you think, Strawman, that our legislators
>> and regulators will permit us more freedom to develop our land as we wish? No. >> Perhaps public concern about rising house prices really could be used to
>> highlight the damage done when government interferes with private property? I don't think so. The middle class is not rational enough. If there is any
hope it lies with the Proles.
| 
