One Finite Planet

One Finite Planet

The Housing Price Trap: A global bubble?

Date Published:


The Australian prime minister (Malcolm Turnbull) was interviewed on the ABC program ‘7:30’ answering questions on government policy regarding tax concessions for real estate investments.  The Prime Minister spoke of the need to retain a specific tax concession because reducing the concession would reduce demand, and to reduce demand would result in lower prices.  The point was put “it is basic supply and demand”.  The same logic could suggest that restricting supply of housing would also be good policy, as that would also maintain, or even lift, house prices!    But the key fact is that here is a national leader, committed to ensuring high, and even artificially high, cost of housing despite the resultant social problems.  This raises some significant questions:  what is the desired out come with respect to housing prices?  Are political decisions exacerbating an international housing price bubble?

Three points are worth examining:

  1. So why does government policy support and even inflate housing prices, despite the social problems that may result?
  2. What are the resulting social problems
  3. The end result must be will be significant collapse in the financial system

1. So why does government policy support housing prices?

High housing prices can have negative consequence, so why have policy to keep prices at high level?

We have had around 300 years of strong population growth. That means 300 years where year on year, the demand for housing increases.  That means 300 years where the land component of housing, has more valuable year on year, driven by that increasing demand.  The result is that the premise ‘on average, over time, real estate values will rise’ have become a pillar of our economic structure.  Our economic system has evolved around the concept that over time, on average, any original mortgage against real estate will decline as a percentage of the value of the real estate, and thus the mortgage represents a decreasing risk over time.

The above interview with a prime minister for a country where 2/3 of the population own their home.  Therefore, 2/3 of voters see economic benefit from an rise in the value of homes.  It then follows that a rise in the value of homes nationally, increases national wealth. Households can leverage this increased home value which injects cash into the economy creating a stronger economy.

Further, the GFC helped demonstrate the consequences when home values drop.  No one wishes to repeat what has happened in some cities in the US during the GFC.  It seems logical that steps to support the continuing increase home prices provide protection against a fall in home prices.  This provides great scare tactics against any step the may slow or take some percentage from home prices.

So policies that ensure home prices continue to rise can enjoy strong voter support, can stimulate the economy and provide ready-made scare tactics for any alternative.

2. What are the resulting social problems?

All the points above sound so positive, just what can the negatives be?

The most obvious negative is that as home prices increase, less people can afford homes. And as rents tend to also rise as ownership prices increase, this means that not only a rise in those that cannot afford to own a home, but also a rise in the percentage of people who cannot afford anywhere to live at all.

The more homes you own, the wealthier you become in order to acquire even more homes.  So the resulting trend is a concentration of wealth, and an environment that favours investors owning homes rather than the home occupant. Rich and poor divides feed social unrest.

3. The end result is significant financial collapse.

Eventually, the home ownership level will change the voter balance, and policies to reduce home prices will an election.  Either this or some other factor will This can be well predicted but eventually it is an issue and prices will at some time fall.

The very population growth that has driven continual rises to current very high levels, is itself under threat.  It is quite obvious to all the family sizes are much lower today than a few generations ago,  and that is the subject of much more discussion in these webpages.  The effect is not uniform but some locations already have seen drops in population that puts downward pressure on real estate prices.  As the population plateaus, the number of place feeling this impact will grow.  Small triggers such as even small economic slowdowns can than have significant impacts.

It was discussed above how price rises increase household wealth and on average result in increases in borrowings.  The problem is that the rise in wealth is intangible as it is only the same houses, being declared more valuable without any real new wealth,  but the loans still need repaying if the valuation ever lowers again.  Sop politician fear the prices lowering again.  The result is that the increase in national wealth is very intangible and the increase in national debt is very tangible.   The higher level the prices reach, the greater the exposure.

How significant the impact will be will vary with levels of exposure to home loans. When the impact will be felt is largely a factor of where in the world we are discussing.  High immigration levels delay the population plateau effect.  However both population plateau effect and concentration of ownership of housing are trends everywhere in the long term.  A significant impact is eventually unavoidable.

A Global Bubble?

Globally, the rate of population growth has dramatically slowed.  Almost every country is seeing declining population growth, which will logically lead to almost every country seeing real estate slow.  But slowing, or effectively halting, population growth should stall prices, no?  That makes sense except in many markets, prices are inflated by the growth, which means remove the growth and there is a correction.  The GFC was very much driven by one of the first impacts. Expect more.

Table of Contents


Flawed Australian voice of Indigenous People referendum: The irony of a voice campaign that failed to listen.

A tragic lost opportunity. Why didn’t those proposing the voice make changes to remove ambiguity and eliminated enough of the negative perception to win over enough support instead of simply declaring” “No, if that is how you see it you are either racist or stupid!” Was it just that there was no willingness to listen?

Australians had an opportunity in a constitutional referendum to righteously shout loudly “I am not a racist” by voting for a proposition that, at its core, could be seen as fundamentally flawed, divisive and even potentially racist, in the hope even a risk of moving in the direction of apartheid is still better than nothing.

The referendum resulted in a huge setback for action on indigenous disadvantage and while it did seem unlikely to do anything to unify Australians and offer more than some possible affirmative action, the division resulted with even sometimes “yes” voters being encouraged to also be racist.

This is a deeper look trying to see each side from the perspective of the other, with the reality that both sides had a point, and a vast majority of people do want equality and unity.

Perhaps it little more work could bring things together and offer a fresh enough perspective to move beyond just another well-intentioned patronising racism failure like the stolen generations?

Read More »

Environment: On all paths, disruption is imminent & preparation advisable.

Either we disrupt the economic system of a gradual path to transition from fossil fuels, extreme weather disrupts us, or most likely we deal with a mix of both disruptions.

We are living through many trends that simply cannot continue, and while there is competition for which trend reaching a tipping point will cause the greatest disruption over the next decade, the environment and rising CO2 levels will play a key role by 2030.

While some righteous environmentalists protest for everyone to embrace austerity and simply just stop burning fossil fuels, what is required is replacement infrastructure reliant on fossil fuels. In practice we can’t switch off until positive action replaces the need for fossil fuels, which is progressing too slowly in a failing effort to avoid disrupting economies and the establishment.

Reality is both the extreme weather events that further motivate action and those actions themselves will cause disruption, which will both combine with the disruption from AI and the collapse of economic Ponzi schemes.

Read More »

Population: Our greatest achievement may cause our demise.

Arguably mankind’s greatest achievement, the near eradication of infant mortality, has resulted in a population explosion resulting in overpopulation that we prefer not to mention, even though it may yet kill us. Technically we would not die from overpopulation itself, just as people don’t really die from “old age”, and the real risk is that an already present threat will be exacerbated and become fatal because through our greed we ignore overpopulation.

Unlike old age, the overpopulation risk factor could be avoided or reversed, we may be influenced by economists dependant on Ponzi schemes, the worlds’ largest corporations and billionaires who thrive off the resultant increases in inequality into believing that living conditions required by ever increasing population levels benefit everyone and not just those living in mansions.

Read More »

Cost of coal power vs renewables: China expanding coal while the suckers go green?

If coal fired power can no longer compete on price, then why is China building two new coal power plants per week? Is China somehow able to use coal fired electricity to gain a competitive advantage against western manufacturing which increasingly relies on “clean green” but more expensive energy, with the result that emissions and jobs are simply transferred to China?

The current politics of climate agreements encourage rich countries to offshore some emissions to those countries often forced to be more reliant coal and with higher emissions. Could we fix the problem of China syndrome emissions if there was the political will?

Read More »

Righteous environmentalism: an opium for the people concerned about climate.

There is a real need to protect the environment, and advocacy for the environment is great, but that advocacy can acquire traits of a religion, which at the extreme can even result in far-right eco-terrorism, and more in the mainstream can result in righteous environmentalism and embracing austerity and sacrifices as “an opium”.

The “righteous environmentalists” preach this austerity as necessary life of the future to an audience that just see the rich becoming even richer. This blindly serves an alternate agenda and needlessly alienates and disenfranchises much of the population. The result is do-nothing politicians to get re-elected instead of motivating voters for real action on climate change and electing leaders who will act.

Read More »