There’s been some discussion of late about what’s wrong with the housing market in Australia here and here.

The simple facts are these, house prices have grown enormously over the past years, but inflation has remained very low in global terms (~3% or 4%). Inflation cannot account for the rapid increase in house prices.

Many property owners went through a spate of renovations in the early naughties, whilst a renovation will add some value to a property it can’t account for the tremendous increase we’ve seen in this country – after all you can’t transform a $250k house in to a $400k house just by putting in new floor boards and giving it a lick of paint.

The cost of actually building a house (i.e. the materials and labour) is pretty affordable (and always has been) and costs have not risen much at all in the last 10 years. The cost of building cannot account for the rise the price of houses.

Land is the commodity that has risen dramatically in price. Why? Do we have less of it than we use to? Has our population suddenly spiked as during the baby boom? No. Average lot sizes are now 1/8th of an acre, the ¼ acre block is a distant memory. Land prices have grown even in those states that see net emigration to other states outweighing their net immigration from other states.

The only rational explanation for the rapid rise in the cost of land is speculation. Very little real value has been added to the cost of land over the past ten years and such value as renovations might have added cannot account for the continued increase house prices because a after a period of time the market will have priced those renovations in to the price of houses and prices will plateau, especially if they were widespread and some time ago.

This situation is aided and abetted by governments of both persuasions and at both federal and state levels. First home owners were given $7000 of money for nothing under Howard and this continued under Rudd. Indeed this was tripled for a period of time during the GFC and the $7000 giveaway continues to this day. In addition, federal governments of both persuasions have retained negative gearing (a tax practice that is illegal in most of the rest of the word barring New Zealand and Canada) and kept Capital Gains Tax at absurdly low levels, even as incomes and asset prices rose. Both of these things encourage speculation, as does the government’s 100% backing of virtually all bank accounts. It might have made sense to sure up confidence in the banks by backing deposits during the GFC but it makes very little sense now. States seem uninterested in promoting density, instead releasing land that was previously zoned as semi rural thereby promoting urban sprawl and which doesn’t attract first home buyers who presumably would like to have something approaching a reasonable commute to and from work.

We hear screams from the property developers about a piddling 1.9% decrease in house prices in Perth, the way they were carrying on you’d think it was the end of the world. First home buyers are told to “get in now” so they “don’t miss out” on the market even though the price (not the cost mind you) of houses continues to outstrip yearly incomes manyfold and is continuing to grow. All of which is classic bubble behaviour.

When a capital strike is suggested (which will probably be ineffectual in itself) those baby boomers who have benefited most from the status quo turn around and sneer that the people signing up to it on the website couldn’t afford it anyway (I could for one but that’s besides the point). If that were genuinely so, the reaction would have to be described as pretty hysterical, as you’d except when prices are overinflated – a collapse in the value of their investment properties would do them serious financial damage and in a bubble, perception is everything. Herd psychology doesn’t have to be rational but damn it’s powerful.

It seems unlikely that either the Labor or the Liberal parties would be brave (in the way that Sir Humphrey Appleby would use that word) enough to tackle the negative gearing and CGT rorts on their own, let alone be mature enough to put the national interest first and adopt a bipartisan policy of enough’s enough when it comes to negative gearing and CGT so we’ll be waiting for some little psychological spark like, say an online capital strike petition to bring down the ponzi scheme that is the Australian real estate market. Here’s hoping…

After a long absence I offer this short thought that occurred to me recently, there are two models of theistic belief:

One where god/s is/are the loadstone of an arch, without which everything falls to pieces and nothing seems necessary or good and we all fall into nihilism.

One where god/s is/are more like a back yard, some people like to have one, others can’t be bothered with the trouble of maintaining one, the ones who do like them can at least understand that others don’t and all could effectively do without one if they had to.

I know which one I prefer.

At first glance the idea of Fundamentalist relativism might seem strange. After all they believe in the inerrancy and literal truth of their holy book. They are right everyone else is wrong and because they believe so must you. Pretty absolutist so far, but watch what happens when the subject of creationism arises.

When seeking to get access to the classroom and thus the minds of the young creationists will start moaning about the tyranny scientific orthodoxy and insist that Darwinian evolution is “just a theory” and thus we can have alternative theories (Einstein’s theory of relativity is also “just a theory” but do they really doubt it?).

Epistemologically speaking this is relativism. Evolution is massively supported by the evidence and discoveries after Darwin died (most notably DNA) have only confirmed it. 150 years on from the publication of the Origin evolution has stood up to everything its opponents have thrown at it and come through with flying colours to be at the core of our understanding of biology, virology and so on – quite an achievement. The ideas proffered by creationists on the other hand are not tested and not testable (how does one prove that a god did anything without first proving that this god exists?) they fail to account for what evolution accounts for and we cannot make predictions based on it. Evolution can explain the emergence of new diseases, just in the last couple of decades Ebola, SARS, bird flu and swine flu have all come into existence where previously they did not exist; creationism cannot account for this fact. Evolution tells us that the emergence of new types of life is based on genetic mutations that are favourable to the organism thus we worry about whether bird flu will mutate so that human to human transmission is possible and attempt to make drugs to attack the virus. Creationism leaves us with an intellectually crippling ‘it must be God’s wrath’ non-explanation.

There are many other examples of the power of evolution’s explanations and predictions but the point is made. Creationism just can’t compete yet its proponents insist that it be given equal weighting in the science classroom with evolution. “There are other ways of knowing!” “Teach the controversy!” we hear. The assumption being that religion is just as good at explaining the natural world as science. Evidence be damned, equal time is the demand. Yet this is a call to set unproved and unprovable religious ideas alongside well tested and supported science as being equal as theories and thus equally true – the basis for this call is an a priori belief that the faithful are right and everyone else is wrong. You put in absolutism at one end and you get relativism at the other, the very thing Fundamentalists decry.

Strangely creationism has its secular defenders in the science studies area of the sociology departments of certain universities, their chief argument being the ‘imperialism of science’ in disproving alternative explanations. The most notable of these unusual people is Professor Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick. You can read more about these guys here.

As Richard Dawkins asked “if science is just a patriarchal western orthodoxy why is it that delegates going to a conference overseas on cultural relativism go by plane and not by magic carpet?”

I hasten to add most Christians are not creationists. However the ones who are are sufficient in number to be a problem, especially in the US where 40% of people claim to have been born again and a majority think the world is only about 6000 years old.

This week they have a stand-in host in the ACT Director Ben Williams. They rehash what he does and he tries to be more factual and less hyperbolic than the regular co-hosts.

Human Rights forum in Parliament House

Three days of consultations were held in Parliament House last week. They rehash what a Charter of Rights is and why they don’t like it. They mention Victoria and how it’s supposedly effecting their exemptions. This stuff has been discussed so many times before I won’t go into it further.

Jim Wallace’s talking points were that he was sceptical about whether a Charter would actually protect rights (mentioning that Victoria’s and the ACT’s Charter doesn’t give blastocytes a right to life is as much as he could muster on this point) and that it would be an activist’s Charter. He mentioned that some in the UK call their Charter a criminal’s Charter, his fear is that activist groups here like people who think that religion should not be able to impose its moral codes on others would be able to challenge unjust laws that are currently on the books.

No action.

Greens’ Marriage Equality Bill

A Galaxy poll last week found that 60% of Australians now support equal marriage (a fact that naturally they don’t mention) up from just 46% 5years ago. To give a bit of traction to the poll Senator Hanson-Young from South Australia as put up a private member’s Bill in the Senate to bring in marriage equality in Australia, similar to one that was put up a couple of years ago by then Senator Kerry Nettle (also from the Greens).

After a brief summary of the Bill they try to justify their position opposing it by a slippery slope argument asking why not allow polygamy after all people in polygamous relations might love each other too. The difference is of course there is a power imbalance in polygamous relationships that reinforces patriarchy and as numerous cases in the US show they are often very deleterious for both the women and the children in these relationships.

The will be a Senate enquiry about the Bill and they encourage people to make submissions where they start taking them.

Euthanasia Enquiry in Tasmania

There’s a Parliamentary enquiry in to euthanasia in Tasmania as a result of a Greens Bill seeking to legalise it. We get a snide comment from one of the regular presenters that the Greens seem to be less about trees and more about “undermining marriage and family” and “important issues of life” – not exactly a comment consistent with their claim to be partisan.

The deadline for submissions is 31st July and they want people to go to their website where they will have a campaign running on the issue. Non Tasmanians can also put in a submission.

A New Book on Girls’ Sexualisation

A new book called “Getting Real – Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls” is coming out in September on the sexualisation girls edited by a Director of the Christian Right lobby group the Women’s Forum of Australia, Melinda Tankard Reist.

After extolling Melinda they urge people to buy the book (cash for comment perhaps?). What they don’t mention is that the publisher of the book, Spinifex Press is run by Susan Hawthorne and Renate Klein, the latter being one of the best-known and longest-established 'pro-life feminists' in Australia. Interestingly they often publish books by lesbians 'across fiction, non-fiction and poetry’; something that I’m sure would horrify most of the listeners to the podcast.

New Delhi's High Court has issued a ruling that said the section of India's Penal Code that criminalised homosexuality (S377) was a violation of fundamental rights and unconstitutional. The laws were drafted by the British 150 years ago. Law minister Veerappa Moily said that the government would have to “examine the verdict” in which the Court recommended the formal abolition of Section 377 as it is unconstitutional.

The joy on this man's face says it all:

This week’s show partially continues in the vein of trying to show they care about things besides abortion, stem cell research and gay rights.

Asylum Seekers Being Charged for Their Stay on Christmas Island

Like me and I dare say most other Australians the ACL had no idea that our government was charging people $120 a day to stay in detention camps while they are being processed and had been doing so for 17 years when Keating was Prime Minister. Like me and I dare say most other Australians they were shocked to hear about it especially since it can leave people with debts of up to $45,000 – debts most people simply couldn’t afford to pay. 97% of all debts were not paid and it was costing fortune to get the remaining 3%.

They quote Petro Georgiou when he said “we don’t change drug deals, paedophiles or the most sadistic of murderers for their time in gaol and make them pay for that out of their own pocket, so why are we imposing this draconian regime on asylum seekers?” They point out how and unjustified and punitive this is.

They try to walk a fine line by keeping their Liberal supporters on side by saying we do need strong boarder protection but we need to be compassionate to people in detention.

Then we get the Right Wing bullshit that presumes that if you are seeking asylum you have to be poor, if you arrive on a plane in Indonesia you can’t possibly be fleeing your country in fear of your life, noooooo you’re too rich. It just shows where these guys belong politically – however non-partisan they pretend to be.

No action.

Fallout from the Auscar Affair

Like they say, pretty much all of the time Parliament sat last week was devoted to this stupid issue and serious debates on climate change were postponed until the spring session because Malcolm Turnbull didn’t check his sources. They try to say everyone looked bad at the end of it, again showing themselves to be true blue Libs since there was universal agreement in the press, even amongst those commentators who are ardently pro-Liberal that Turnbull stuffed up big time.

No action.

New Homelessness Enquiry

The Federal Government commissioned a White Paper on homelessness in Australia last year. As a result of this, the relevant standing committee of the House of Reps has set up an enquiry that is seeking input on new homelessness legislation and supported accommodation. Submissions are due by 14^th August.

No action.

British Judge Calls for Action to Stop Family Breakdowns

A Judge in England has called for a national commission to tackle family breakdowns and a stigma to be attached to the break-up of relationships and they tie this in with claims by a British sociologist they had at their annual conference last year who said basically strong families equals happy, wealthy communities and weak ones equal poor, unhappy communities. This of course is an extremely Right Wing analysis because it then shifts the emphasis from where should be – on what action the state can take to fix the problem and privatises social ills in an extremely simplistic manner (‘get your marriage sorted out and all will be well’). Then we get the saccharine closing comment that ‘of course we’re not judging people whose relationships have broken down’…perish the thought!

No action.

Equality Bill in Britain

I knew it couldn’t last, they had to revert to form sooner of later. A new Bill in England proposes to comprehensively ban discrimination. They claim the Bill could ban the display of crucifixes and religious symbols in hospitals, given their previous lies about tobacco advertising in Canada I find myself rather sceptical about this claim. The Bill also would remove the exemptions from anti-discrimination legislation for faith schools. Faith schools can no longer discriminate against gay and lesbian Britons (which makes sense, not just on its merits but also when you consider that fully 1/3 of schools in Britain are faith schools thanks to the policies of Tony Blair) the Bill seeks to widen it so that they can’t discriminate on the basis of faith. Naturally they have a bit of whinge about this.

No action.

They close by telling us they’ve got 14,000 signatures against a Charter of Rights, it seems to be petering out.