FACT CHECK: Is immigration responsible for high house prices?
If the money supply and housing stock remained constant in a growing population, the amount of money circulating in the economy would be 'spread thinner' across the population (less money available per person, on average). When migrants enter a country and start earning wages or receive support payments from the existing pool of money, there is, on average, less money available per person that can be spent on housing. The effect of this scenario would be a drop in house prices. It would not matter how much demand there is for housing if people do not have the funds to satisfy that demand. While spending substitution may occur, for example, by prioritising housing over entertainment and leisure, such substitution is quickly exhausted by property inflation when any unnecessary spending falls to zero.
House prices are driven not by immigration per se but by the creation of additional money by the banks, issued as credit and inflating the money supply at a higher rate than the ratio of population-growth to the housing stock. This is in turn a function of the cost and availability of credit. The critical effect of low interest rates is the expectation of capital gains, so that a greater fraction of new money is issued as credit for property investments that remain either unoccupied or consist of undeveloped land, resulting in more money in circulation but less housing available for owner-occupiers or renters.
VERDICT: False. Immigration does not of itself causes high house prices; all else remaining equal, immigration would cause house prices to drop. The price level of houses is determined almost exclusively by the cost and availability of bank credit, creating the expectation of capital gains.
If the money supply and housing stock remained constant in a growing population, the amount of money circulating in the economy would be 'spread thinner' across the population (less money available per person, on average). When migrants enter a country and start earning wages or receive support payments from the existing pool of money, there is, on average, less money available per person that can be spent on housing. The effect of this scenario would be a drop in house prices. It would not matter how much demand there is for housing if people do not have the funds to satisfy that demand. While spending substitution may occur, for example, by prioritising housing over entertainment and leisure, such substitution is quickly exhausted by property inflation when any unnecessary spending falls to zero.
House prices are driven not by immigration per se but by the creation of additional money by the banks, issued as credit and inflating the money supply at a higher rate than the ratio of population-growth to the housing stock. This is in turn a function of the cost and availability of credit. The critical effect of low interest rates is the expectation of capital gains, so that a greater fraction of new money is issued as credit for property investments that remain either unoccupied or consist of undeveloped land, resulting in more money in circulation but less housing available for owner-occupiers or renters.
VERDICT: False. Immigration does not of itself causes high house prices; all else remaining equal, immigration would cause house prices to drop. The price level of houses is determined almost exclusively by the cost and availability of bank credit, creating the expectation of capital gains.
Marxist doctrine rejects the law of identity, which dictates the everything is identical only to itself (A=A). This rejection is apparent in the Marxist concept of Authenticity - a distinction between an authentic self who is 'true to self' vis-a-vis an inauthentic self who is not ‘true to self’, which implies that oneself may be not oneself, both oneself and different to oneself at the same time, therefore contradiction. Marxists declare that “A not = A”, that something is not itself, but the symbol ‘=‘ is already an expression of the law of identity, its symbol, so the law of identity is denied and affirmed at the same time. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/the-law-of-identity
Michael Kowalik’s Newsletter
The Law of Identity
The classical law of identity is commonly interpreted as ∀x(x=x), meaning that everything is identical to itself (Britannica). I argue that this formula does not adequately express the principle as described by Aristotle, that everything is identical Only…
‘Evidence-based’ does not mean ‘rational’ or ‘morally right’.
A proposition has meaning only insofar as the words used to express it have meaning. To accept a contradictory proposition as merely an idiom signifying non-contradictory meaning implies a rejection of the meaning of words, therefore contradiction.
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
A court case related to the burning of the Old Parliament House is proceeding now. https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/trial-of-accused-ringleaders-of-old-parliament-house-fire-begins/news-story/43065721c38df6a3cdeab49f01abbfd3
The “catch” is no back pay and they will insist you were morally wrong. No, you were right all along, and you should not shy away from stating your reasons for defying medical coercion. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/why-vaccine-mandates-are-unethical
For humanity to become more logically consistent we must pay more attention to consistency of language and to the fundamental laws of sense. Inconsistent use of language and ignorance of the laws of sense guarantee absurd, destructive policies and systems.
Why do we even have to vote on whether nativist supremacism is a good idea? Doesn't our shared disdain for Nazi ideology already answer the referendum question? Or is it some kind of a moral test?
We all agree about equal rights for all races, tribes and ethnicities. Special rights are not equal rights. Special land rights are not equal rights. Special representation to parliament is not equal rights. Special acknowledgements of race at every public event is not equal rights. The best possible rights are equal rights; all other options lead to disaster.
Several decades ago children were operating machinery in factories, with skills and awareness of a professional adult. A teenager in those days could be a foreman or a fully qualified mechanic. Nowadays, most teenagers are moving around in a mental haze, half asleep, barely aware of what is happening around them, clumsy, lacking physical intuition, unable to read and synchronise with skilled adults, and the common excuse is that they are "just children", or their parents may simply shrug their shoulders and utter "those teenagers", as if it were a comprehensive justification of the hazy mental state. What then is the difference that made one generation mentally sharp, intuitively skilled, aware and attentive, while the current generation dopey and clumsy? It seems that the biggest factor are the different expectations that applied to these generations. Kids are evidently capable of a far higher standard of performance than what is expected of them nowadays, and these low expectations and parental/teacher excuses condition kids to live down to those expectations, to be impotent and dependent.
Supremacism is a universal tribal trait; concepts of universal ‘humanity’ and ‘human equality’ do not make any sense to those who are still tribal at heart.
Here is a wild hypothesis: the Voice referendum was always expected to fail, is meant to fail, only so that the majority will vote with relief, likely in the next year, for the ‘constitutional recognition’ alone. Recognition of seperate “First Nations” is all they need, but they chose to go too far to ensure that recognition will pass like a knife through butter. It will feel like a fair compromise.
Aboriginal supremacists are apparently allowed to claim ANY land that is unused or not used in accordance with the gazetted purpose, not even because it is culturally significant but because it is compensation for the land that was allegedly “stolen”, and all of the continent was “stolen”. This is a very strange concept of “theft”, where you have equal right to use public land, same as everyone else (the public), but want it just for your race. Compensation for equality, because equality is “theft”. Under s10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 the Aboriginal Land Rights Act is surely invalid, because its practical effect is discrimination on the basis of race or the place of origin. https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/recompense-for-loss-aboriginal-land-council-defends-claim-for-100-million-balmoral-beach-reserve/news-story/5f7941c24f7ecc2498ee690000e28f54