not always. We can work on a sq. m basis if you like.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
not always. We can work on a sq. m basis if you like.
You do both know that by now nobody else is reading past the first line of your posts in this thread? So it isn't as if you have to uphold your honour or anything for an audience. Just thought I would say that so you can both relax a bit.
Scott
You do both know that by now nobody else is reading past the first line of your posts in this thread? So it isn't as if you have to uphold your honour or anything for an audience. Just thought I would say that so you can both relax a bit.
Scott
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
No it wasn't.
How about this - 'The average block size in Australia in 1950 was larger than it is today' True or False.
How can the answer be 'not always'? It either is or it isn't.
'We can work on a sq m basis' means that a meaningful comparison would be on a dollar per square meter basis.
Fair cop mate - what a pointless nit pick. Surely it was implied. What kind of idiot would have written 'every single individual block of land in Australia was larger in the 50's than now'.
You're smart enough to know what I meant.
Overall, the general trend is that blocks have become much smaller. Sure, there are a few individual exceptions. Or, do you think otherwise?
Oh no... I'm being sucked in....!!!!!
The bit that is rubbish is the causality (or even a correlation) - there isn't any.
I retired debating this stuff with you a while ago because typically you keep moving the debate just a bit off centre everytime - somebody says that their is no relationship between variable A and B and the reply is "look it variable A - it is the highest ever" (variable B drops off the discussion). It's like watching a politician answer questions from Kerry Obrien. It gets frustrating.
All I can say is those with high levels of debt who have put all their eggs in one asset category, and do work that has highly cyclical demand (e.g. contractors) must be a bit worried - even spending loads of times on forums convincing themselves of some rather illogical arguments about Australia being the only country in the world that is "different".
A $ per sqm basis over time would be very interesting.
If you can work that one out please do. I don't think I can.
Yld matters, you are correct in that there is nothing special or unique about Australia per sei, but you are wrong in that just because property prices in the UK & USA are dropping that ours should too. What about Cambodia? are their prices rising or falling at the moment?
Have you thought that we might just be at different structural points.
You will be correct one day in that Australia at some point in time will have a major property correction, but the question is when? I dont think its in this current cycle.
This whole per sqm discussion is pointless. There is far more to a place than simply sqms - it is the environment, the neighbours, the facilities, the convenience etc. "Housing" is the whole deal.
Bottom line is a typical home in Japan albeit a different "typical" to us went up in price way past incomes and then came crashing back down again. That is the moral of the story.
I think our structural points are near identical. Massive consumer debt run up - many people buying housing assets as a gambling chip rather than a home.no the proportion of investment properties as a % of total properties has been roughly constant over the last 10 years give or take a few % points. We'll see - I think the trend down will continue until sensible prices return.
I mean this in a polite manner, but you can think all you want, luckily personal opinions of individual people dont count, only the majority and even then only if they act on their opinion. And more importantly the opinions of this board have no bearing on the state of my future wealth. Luckily wealth is not derived by a vote by other people as to its correctness
when did you start entering this debate, 2006 or 2007? since then incomes have risen 4% 07-08 and around 8% 06-08, interest rates are now dropping, if people are smart enough to fix at reasonable rates for a long period, then future potential inflation will become irrelevant (wasnt there a big argument last year about the unsustainability in the growth of money having an effect on inflation, this year its the worry about deflation, next year????).
If property prices fall say 10%, then you have that 10% fall coupled with reduced interest rates and higher salaries leading to higher affordability.
Whether people act or not i dont know, i still maintain my belief that the majority of people are sheep, the majority enter at the margin and end up being burnt. What happened to all those 'desperate buyers' from late 2007, who were complaining about the unfairness of excessive bidders bidding up the price of property, property being sold before auction before they even had a chance to get their bid in etc. These same people are probably now hunkering down congratulating themselves that they didnt buy and are now waiting for property to fall. They will still be waiting until property enters its next boom upon which time they will be jumping up and down complaining about the unfairness of it all.
lol my thoughts exactly you could throw a house at them under market and they still wouldn't buy and will whine for the next 20yrs I wokred out 4 coastal areas in queensland what the cost to buy vs renting in these areas and guess what it was cheaper to Buy with the fhog and lower interest rates
No thanks. I've got a nice deposit that will continue to grow