You may get your correction after a few rate rises, time will tell.

Sayce is just oscillating between comments on an oversupply and a huge undersupply that will cause serious housing shortages in the future. The brilliance in that statement is only in its controversail nature.

Why is this statement so clever? Because it highlights the stupidity of what the spruikers are claiming about the Oz property market.

I have consistently pointed out the fallacy that Oz house prices will continue to rise as long as supply can’t keep up with vague notions of underlying demand. Implicit in your claims, is a belief that the ability of your average Australian to afford a house is irrelevant. You seem to think that even if houses are 12 times the average income in Oz, house prices can continue to rise…without explaining where these new buyers are going to come from??

So here are some simple questions, because the rubbish you clowns have written above deserves to be confronted head on (I have placed them in capital letters, so you appreciate at how frustrated your recycled comments are becoming).

WHERE ARE THE NEW HOME BUYERS GOING TO COME FROM IN 2010 AND BEYOND?

WHY DO CONSISTENTLY IGNORE THE ISSUE OF HOUSING AFFORDIBILITY AND HOW THIS ISSUE WILL AFFECT HOUSING POLICY GOING FORWARD?

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO QUOTE ECONOMISTS THAT WORK FOR THE BIG OZ BANKS, WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE OZ BANKS ARE CLEARLY DESPERATE TO KEEP THE PYRAMID SCHEME GOING – DON’T YOU THINK THIS IS A WEAK SOURCE OF ‘EVIDENCE’?

I agree that there is way too little building going on …
And it doesnt take an Einstein to figure out why this is…
It’s due to the meddling ways and market manipulation of the interfering socialist state-, municipal- and federal governments who put up a labyrinth of red tape, and excessive fees and charges that discourage land and property development. Hence too little new development.

Get rid of the thieving pollies and Bob’s ya uncle!!

Dismissing him as just another spruiker would not wash, I would suggest. At the very least, you owe it to your readership to give detailed and serious consideration to what seem to be more and more compelling reasons to doubt what appears to be the Sayce-Danning-Cowie line on an imminent price crash.
Is it a coincidence that all three of you should be so convinced that Australia will have the same outcome as the US, in spite of several fundamental differences between the two markets – differences that, you and Co. fail to acknowledge and dismiss out of hand.

So as to make it easier for you, these would be the key ones to address:
1. The US (and other places like Spain), had gone through several years of a speculative building mania of houses and condos prior to the crash. Australia has not.
2. The US property owner can walk away from their home and be free of the debt with their non-recourse loans. Australians cannot. (If it is not obvious, I can explain why this is highly relevant.)
3. Stimulus money in the US, by and large, is being channelled to cronies and zombie banks and is not finding its way into the real economy, as a result of which employment and the economy continures to collapse. In Australia, by and large, the opposite is the case, supporting employment and economic activity during the slump. We may disagree about whether this is a good idea or not, but its relevance to the question of an impending housing price collapse should be obvious.
4. (I, and others, will add more, if, and as, they come to mind, but you can make a good start with the above three.)

I look forward to seeing a decent treatment of these differences between the US and Australian contexts, and hopefully without those worn out hollow accusations about property bulls believing that house prices can only go up. None of your most serious critics, I suggest, believe that, so you can stop demeaning them, and your own writings, with your accusations that they do.

One more observation: While it is true that gold is both a monetary metal (it is money), and a commodity, it would be even more accurate to say that it is primarily a monetary metal, and only secondarily a commodity. I don’t know the excact percentages involved off the top of my head, but the vast majority of annual gold production, and of above ground gold, is held/used as an investment, as a store of value, as money, and only a very small proportion is used in jewellery, dentistry and electronics.
Does anyone here have the percentages?

1. The good doctor is a victim of group think.
2. He is a hired gun for the weekend, dutifully re-gurgitating the official line of the DR and MM.
3. Incapable of thinking for himself.
4. Too lazy to investigate the question properly and give due consideration to contrary evidence.