Yep and all the capitalist won’t share the profits on the way up but on the way down they expect to socialise their loses.. Share holders haven’t been bailed out and neither should property investors. If you are a conservative investor like Johnny then you won’t need a bail out. Investing isn’t without risk and landlords are just going to have to cop it.. And those that have a highly leveraged daisy chain of hoarded houses can just suck big ones really. That’s what greed gets you..
Anyone thinking of buying property right now should really think hard and look around at what is happening. Biggest economic hit ever. Housing hasn’t gone unscathed through any recession in oz, let alone a depression.
I agree to a point, and that point is my lack of knowledge around economics.
Socialising losses and privatising gains is obviously not a great dynamic, but it's one that we see the farming community enjoy whenever we have a drought or similar calamity (that's a huge simplification, but I think you get the point). That's not because we all love a farmer but because if large swathes of the farming capacity in Australia goes through shock and/or collapses, food security for the nation becomes a thing. So we'd essentially cut our noses off to spite our face if we didn't suck it up and help them out when they need it, or so the theory goes.
Would this be the same with the property market? I am a very conservative investor because I don't invest for a living but for my retirement/future/family. What about those cats who do invest as their livelihood, and there are a lot of them. What about the self-funded retirees and the folks that manage their own super with investments like these. Would the shock to the nation be greater and harder to manage than the shit sandwich of bailing out those who took risks and failed?
Genuine question as I don't know the answer. The skeptic in me assumes that it's more to do with voting behaviour but I really don't know.