"Harcourts NZ CEO Bryan Thompson said the May figures were a reflection of the current "sound" market and the "abysmal" market of May 2008 in many locations."

What a liar! Take a look at the statements made by this same person at this time last year. There was no mention of the market being abysmal, only the usual optimistic spin. Alex, how abot saving this comment and compare it to what he will say at the same time next year.

Shuttle, it's called doing his job. Look at his title CEO Harcourts. Head of a company trying to sell things. Of course he puts a positive spin on things.

What supply. Especially at the bottom end of the market sellers cant get what they think their house is worth (even though it clearly isnt) so theyre not even trying. Im looking forward to sales increasing, itll only speed up the inevitable.

Matt Nolan has a post on his blog: The myth of "over-investment" in housing.
He says we can't have been over investing in housing as there has been a shortage of houses. His point is that houses are productive as they provide somewhere to live.

"And before anyone says "we borrowed to buy houses off each other" lets try to remember that if we buy something off someone else in the country it doesn't change national debt - it is just a transfer."

In a later post Some issues with GDP he concludes:

"I completely agree with many criticisms out there about the NZ housing market, but saying that the countries terrible debt position is the result of a "housing obsession" seems off the mark - as we don't appear to have overbuilt.

In reality the data seems to indicate that NZ inc has borrowed to fund a whole bunch of business investment that has turned sour - plant and machinery investment has been through the roof and we haven't done much with it. Unfortunate, but C'est la vie."
http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/06/03/the-myth-of-over-investment-in-housing/
http://www.tvhe.co.nz/2009/06/04/some-issues-with-gdp/

If our " whole bunch of business investment [that] has turned sour" what were the point of the mass migrations that occurred over the last few decades as we are continually told that it is all about "needed skills" as migration has put up house prices (and infrastructure charges) and in some ways improved and other ways reduced the quality of life (infill housing and traffic) for many people?

"And before anyone says "we borrowed to buy houses off each other" lets try to remember that if we buy something off someone else in the country it doesn't change national debt - it is just a transfer."

What a load of bollocks that statement is.

And where did the money to fund the loans come from? Not enough dosh in NZ so it came from Overseas. Seems to me the National Debt got changed.

@ Gibber

You are wrong - If I buy a house from you and you are a new zealander, there is no increase in national debt. (The only increase that might result is if I buy a new house that has imported building materials - but this would be a very small proportion of the total cost.)

As soon as we transact for the sale your NZ bank account has exactly the same amount of money credited to it as mine is debited. Therefore no loss of funds to the wider world. The question what you decide to do with your pile of cash, and whether or not I pay back my loan and how fast.

Matthew,
that presumes

a) you have the dosh to buy sitting in an existing account and it moves into my account
b) You don't have the dosh and have to borrow it.

Then
i) The bank magics it out of thin air to appear in my account via the power of fractional reserve banking
Or
ii) The bank offsets the money it has loaned you with a deposit from onshore
Or
iii)The bank offsets the money it has loaned you with a deposit from an overseas borrower by way of Uridashi bonds or similar.

The bank may choose to do this to keep its reserves within regulatory limitis. There is only so much money the banks are allowed to magic out of thin air you know.

If iii) then Net Increase to Foreign Debt.

This site is the home of negativity

Matt / Rod : you guys are so wrong, this site is NOT the home of negativity.......and another thing, how the hell do you know where my mother-in-law infests , anyway ?

Bullit-- it still reduces supply because people are not puting cheap housing on the market because they know that first home buyers can-not get deposits, a bit of a mexican stand-off and tradionally most investment properties are cheap rentals and as Bollard and Co. have effectively lowered interest rates people can now afford to hang onto these properties rather than sell them, investors are also looking at property again as 5-7% return is better than 3-4% in the Bank.
You say when the market returns to normal, do you call normal the abnormal years 2002 to 2007 or the normal years 1995 to 2001. I suspect the way you talk the former and not the latter.
On must remember low supply/low demand is as about equal as high supply and high demand, but maybe in the former prices are more stabble and that is really what you want for a stabble economy, not all the crazy speculation that we had in the 2002- 2007 period driven by peoples greed to speculate.
Real estate agents will always tell you they can't get enough listings and if they had more they could sell them, thats sales talk 101.

a>链接: 彭旭
New a>链接: 彭旭
url]链接: [url=http://www.google.com]彭旭[/url]
a]链接: [a/]http://www.google.com[a]彭旭[/a]
link]链接: [link=http://www.google.com]彭旭[/link]
纯链接: http://www.google.com/1.html 彭旭
リンク>链接: 彭旭