Biased Lenders

Reddit

Oh great.

There’s a federal election in Australia and it’s scheduled for the 21st of August. If it were possible to avoid all the media coverage of the upcoming election by holding our breath while immersed in a bucket of molasses, we would. But the truth is that you cannot separate politics from share markets these days. Like regular prostate checkups, discussing politics is something we have to do for our own financial health, whether we like it or not.

The main reason you have to figure politics and policy into your investment calculations is that governments around the world are in dire financial straits. They need money. So they’re taxing everything in sight to get it. And you are in their sights. This, among other things, is what U.S. healthcare legislation was about (taxing or fining Americans for not having health insurance).

Here in Australia, there are two preferred methods for squeezing the household wallet in the name of the public good. The first is the Mineral Resource Rent Tax. It exists today like a soufflé just taken out of the oven: all puffy and full of promise, but ready to fall flat. It’s hard to say if this is still keeping a lid on the upside in Aussie commodity shares.

The other big tax con game is the assertion that carbon needs a price. We have yet to see a compelling argument about why this is so. The only argument we have seen is that carbon dioxide emissions from man-made activities are causing the Earth’s temperatures to rise. Thus, carbon needs a price so businesses can be discouraged from carbon dioxide emissions and households can foot the bill to halt the oceans from rising and save the Planet (from us, presumably).

There is surely someone in the DR readership who can educate us as to why the free market has yet to establish a price for carbon. Feel free to edify us with your thoughts by sending an email to dr@dailyreckoning.com

In the meantime – since it’ what we try to do – we’ll offer you the alternative for why the global political class is eager to shove a carbon price down your compliant throat: money. If you put a price on something you can sell it. Or, you tax transactions between buyers and sellers. Either way, a price on carbon produces billions in new government revenues at a convenient time, when many governments are staring bankruptcy in the structural face.

Government wants a price on carbon because it is the ultimate cash cow; a way to clip every single ticket in the economy. It can’t tax it right now, though, because there is no market for it. So it must create a market in order to charge a tax to raise the money for the bills it can’t pay because of its previous intervention in the economy and its general overweening pride about how people should live.

Discuss. Or, judging my previous reactions to our view on the carbon con, disgust.

From a business perspective, if you viewed a carbon tax or a price on carbon as some kind of political inevitability, you’d just want some certainty over the matter. The, at least you could figure it in to your models so you’d be able to determine how much higher to raise prices on your customers to cover the new artificially created, government-mandated price.

The lack of certainty for a price on carbon doesn’t justify just making one up. For instance, if you were confronted by a clown with a chainsaw in one hand and a gun in the other and he asked you which way you wanted to be killed and to decide in ten seconds, you might consider rejecting the question altogether and punching him in his big bulbous red nose instead.

Honk.

But whether there is a carbon price – especially in an economy like Australia’s with lots of mining and coal – fired power plants – is another issue (contrived we’d argue, or self-inflicted) that creates uncertainty for business costs and profits. And the more uncertainty, the worse it is for business and share prices. Come to think of it, the more uncertainty, the harder it is for anyone at all to make plans.

Carbon dioxide does have a price already, by the way. It’s zero. No one wants to buy it. No one wants to sell it. The only way to give it a price is to make it a cost. And the only way to make it a cost is to claim that it’s damaging the public good (air quality, the climate).

And speaking of Australia’s public good, what is NAB head of business banking Joseph Healy up to? Last week, according to news accounts, he made the claim, we think, that the Big Four banks have over-invested in residential housing at the expense of small business lending. Hmm. That sounds right.

Healy said the Basel II capital rules we wrote so much about last week have produced a bias toward home lending. He said, “A bias toward allocating capital to home lending may mean there is less credit to allocate to business, the most productive areas of the economy…The is ultimately bad for growth, bad for competition, bad for jobs, bad for business and in the end bad for Australia.”

If it’s so bad, then, why is it so?

Because it’s good, at least in the short term, for the banks, real estate agents, the government collecting stamp duty, and the whole property spruiking industry in general. You promote housing as a national investment priority if your health and welfare depends on it. The nation’s health and welfare, as Mr. Healy points out, cannot be provided for by people buying and selling houses from each other.

And finally, to close the loop on this climate change an emissions trading scheme subject, do you really care about it? Answer honestly.

We’re asking because the media keep claiming that the Australian public turned on Kevin Rudd when he backed down on his ETS (the ‘great moral challenge of our time’). This, we’ve read, is what doomed him. But is that so?

Maybe. But we think it’s not that people really care about climate change. They like to be seen and heard caring about it because it is both fashionable and morally satisfying. But understanding this about themselves, we think they realised that the Prime Minister cared more about getting re-elected than anything else. This is generally unappealing in a politician when displayed so ostentatiously and without shame. Kevin Rudd reaped what he sowed, just as we all will by our choices, financial and otherwise.

But is it true that the electorate turned on the Prime Minister because he did not share their urgency about climate change? We doubt it. Belief in climate change has become an orthodox position within mainstream media and politics. It is natural then, in the echo chamber of the establishment, for everyone to agree with everyone else and assume the rest of us must agree.

As a non-Australian, though, we wonder if it’s true. Feel free to let us know your thoughts at dr@dailyreckoning.com. But keep your comments clean, or at least civil. We’re trying to save the financial planet here.

Dan Denning
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

Dan Denning
Dan Denning examines the geopolitical and economic events that can affect your investments domestically. He raises the questions you need to answer, in order to survive financially in these turbulent times.
Reddit

Leave a Reply

56 Comments on "Biased Lenders"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Mike Borgelt
Guest
Dan, There is absolutely no need for a carbon price. The most abundant and effective infra red trapping gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, not CO2 which comes a VERY distant second. There is a a little less than 0.04%Co2 and 1 to 4 % water vapour. We can’t do anything about water vapour as 70% of the planet surface is covered in water which is free to evaporate. Water can also change phase and form those cloud things which can cool or warm the surface depending on circumstances. CO2 is a minor bit player except for its biological… Read more »
Stillgotshoeson
Guest
Climate change is very real. Man made climate change is a furfy in my opinion. Just a little while ago we had a little volcaniv eruption in Europe, not sure if any one is aware.. caused some minor disruptions to air traffic for a little while, nothing serious.. Earth has been going through global change since it’s inception, long before man was here, and will continue to long after mankind has gone. Volcanic activity alone has put more crap in the air than man ever has. Solar activity plays a big part on the earths climate. Even if we do… Read more »
Unpopular Truth
Guest
The Carbon trade got killed by the revelation that so called impartial scientists were fudging the figures for political purposes. The issue became toxic (even if the scientists were or were not altering the figures. It was a moot point then). Overnight, people who were sold on the issue became as skeptical as those who actually think about issues before they form an opinion. Everyone backed off as they didn’t want to be associated with corrupt scientists (the hypocrisy of politicians is astounding). The Australian public are NOT outraged at the lack of ETS. The papers are. If you want… Read more »
Jay
Guest
This is spot on! “A bias toward allocating capital to home lending may mean there is less credit to allocate to business, the most productive areas of the economy…The is ultimately bad for growth, bad for competition, bad for jobs, bad for business and in the end bad for Australia.” How hard is this for economists and governments to understand and why is it taking so long to realise. Encouraging house price increases through higher debt levels misallocates capital to non-productive areas. End of story. Yes we all need houses to live in……but….encouraging the buy to hold/rent on a large… Read more »
Biker
Guest

“A bias toward allocating capital to home lending may mean there is less credit to allocate to business, the most productive areas of the economy…”

That’s SO true! I wonder why those foolish banks do it????!!!!

Probably something to do with risk, I suppose, given that 50% of new Australian businesses fail within their first year… and 70% within five years.

Good Lord! Housing must seem almost _safe_ to banks (and governments) in comparison. :)

Lawrence
Guest
Although the effectiveness of carbon trading in addressing climate change is debatable, the science of man-made climate change is indisputable. The facts are: 1. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere traps heat; 2. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; 3. Human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels, release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; and 4. The current RATE of carbon dioxide increase in the earth’s atmosphere is unprecedented. If points 1-3 are true, then man-made climate change is real. You can argue about the extent of our impacts but to say we have no impacts on climate is clearly… Read more »
Justin
Guest
Science aside, any carbon price imposed on us while the energy generation industry is so heavily regulated and run by state granted monopolies will do nothing to help the environment but simply, as you insinuate, boost the government’s (and the banks who get to trade it) coffers at the expense of the people who ultimately pay for it, consumers. Likewise, any arbitrary ‘investment’ by government on green technology or jobs is just another example of crony capitalism, bureaucrats and politicians picking and choosing the winners and losers. The only way to have real progress on this front is for consumers… Read more »
rick e
Guest
Yes to Mick, Also if you check how the earth and other planets revolve around the sun. you will see the axis of the earth the equator has move meaning what was sea is now land and what was land is now sea, so even if ice burgs are melting it does not matter as now some other part is being frozen. The Southern Cross as we see it. Is also marked in caves on the other side of the earth where the axis does not revolve. So the earth does move other ways besides the axis movements only at… Read more »
rick e
Guest

Also does excess carbon leave the atmosphere into space or any other imbalanced chemicals?

rick e
Guest
Hay biker how r ya ? Now can there be a time when renting is more affordable than buying and paying off alone? I feel in Brisbane even 4 ks out of cbd average 3 beder is selling in Morningside for 500 to 700 hundred grand and only being rented out for 400 to 600 bucks a week? So will this be the weight that starts to swing so now people would rather rent and spend up now and enjoy life as one day life will part the bodies? So now the heat will be reduce for buying as smart… Read more »
rick e
Guest

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI

REFILE-European Factors — Shares set to extend falls
at Reuters(Mon 2:51AM EDT)

(this was deleted and replace with this)

Futures point to bounce for Wall Street
Reuters(Mon 5:45AM EDT)

Futures point to bounce for Wall Street
at Reuters(Mon 5:42AM EDT)

Wall Street was set for a bounce on Monday, following a sharp fall in the previous session, when disappointing revenue from bellwethers reporting results, and downbeat consumer sentiment data, hurt equities.

wall street WAS set for a bounce on monday ? (what does that mean?)
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mark a
Guest
Absolutely love this website guys, long for it every day but you really should stick with something you know about. Global warming is real! I really dont need this shit! Im getting over all this global warming bullshit talk of yours like you know what you are talking about. Stick to gold and silver, inflation, deflation and Im yours. Ill even pay for it. I dont have the time or patience to explain global warming to you because I only have the energy to talk to those willing to change and Im sure you have no intentions of listening. I… Read more »
Biker
Guest
Rick: “…can there be a time when renting is more affordable than buying and paying off alone? (If so…) will this be the weight that starts to swing so now people would rather rent and spend up now and enjoy life as one day life will part the bodies?” It has always been that way, Rick. If I was young and really fancied a high-flyin’ lifestyle in a McMansion, for up to $650pw, I’d do that. My kids already do*. If I was in my forties and I observed that for the last two decades home prices have steadily risen…… Read more »
Jason
Guest
It is likely that if the climate shifts as significantly as expected then that is going to result in the decimation of humanity, not to mention a whole lot of other species. Does the population at large really understand what this means. Don’t think so. It is beyond our experience. Humans are only really good at dealing with threats that are immediate. The time scales of climate change means that it is only understood in the abstract. Furthermore, if it is true, it is unlikely that people will take the sort of action that is necessary. Just look at what… Read more »
Fred
Guest
All the news, docos, ads, etc, etc about climate change just seemed too much and I smelt a propaganda rat several years back. One simple consideration; if the global pollies etc were truly concerned about the looming “climate change disaster”, then one thing they’d do is put upward pressure on interest rates; slow economies and slow carbon burning. But we don’t see that, rather the opposite. Action speaking louder than words…. For me, one reason Rudd got dusted was because too many constituents woke up to the fact that that climate change is a big fat lie designed to give… Read more »
Greg
Guest
I’m don’t want to get bogged down in a argument about climate change, there is already information overload and most people have already made up their mind. But to me, it seems naive to think that you can dig up 6,000,000,000 tons of carbon per year from the ground (figure taken from wiki) and put it into the atmosphere and not expect to have some impact on the global ecosystem balance. I am deeply concerned what the impact of this will be over the coming decades. No one knows and no one can know because it has not happened before.… Read more »
Mike Borgelt
Guest
Lawrence, What all the water means is that before you add any CO2 there is already all the water vapour positive feedback that’s going to occur. Also CO2 and water vapour absorb in the same bands. There might be a small effect from the extra CO2 but it is so small(much less than 1 deg C) we can’t measure it or distinguish it from the natural changes that occur all the time. The amount of CO2 has increased by 30% or so from 300ppm to 385ppm and what has happened? We can’t even agree on what (and why) has happened… Read more »
Lachlan
Guest

Oh no its seems Al Gorers little helpers are all over the net again. Well I suppose our desperate leaders need a new super consumption tax before the drop a new money bomb on the economy…and they know time is short.

Lets not forget that CO2 climate change is a monumental fraud as we saw by the CRU emails…”hide the decline”.. how sad.

MadJak
Guest
It must be election time, the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) are out in force. Who will win out of a carbon market? Who’s pushing it the most? BP and merchant bankers, that’s who. Just think of the possibilities of overlaying the complexities of an unproven science with the vagaries of the climate and nature combined with the global banking mess, and I am sure you get the idea on the massive opportunities there for rort and graft to make a quick buck. Just think of this – when else in history have the masses demanded… Read more »
89peterg
Guest
a) I think that global warming is true and nature will start kicking us all up the bum real soon now. b) I also think that the powers that be (who may not be the front men) cannot be trusted to tell the truth or listen to scientists. they will expoit whatever situations arise.. they morph , indoctrinate, legislate and buy their ponzie schemes and satanic practices. c) Any doubts about the science and the need to act now are allayed by the insurance principle.. if there is only a 10% chance of it being true and a serious issue… Read more »
MadJak
Guest
89peterg, I have seen the “insurance principle” bandied about for years, so let’s just put that one aside shall we? If I was to say that 2500 scientists agreed with me that a meteor was going to wipe out all life on earth unless you gave me your house, even though I only emailed the scientists and ignored their comments, using the “insurance principle”, you would be obliged to say well, I guess we’d better give MadJak my house then, just in case. I’d also be interested in when you think it’ll kick us in the bum? People have been… Read more »
MadJak
Guest

sorry,

I meant to say the precautionary principle, which is what I think peter was referring to.

For a detailed analysis of it, I thought this one was quite good:

http://brneurosci.org/pprinciple.html

Stillgotshoeson
Guest
Comment by rick e on 19 July 2010: Hay biker how r ya ? Now can there be a time when renting is more affordable than buying and paying off alone? ( a loan?) Renting is nearly always more affordable than buying a home. The argument is nearly always is renting better than buying.. There are good points and bad points to both and the variables that can effect the outcome of either decision are many. What is in no doubt, if you choose to rent then the difference between what you pay in rent and what you would have… Read more »
Biker
Guest
“Biker thinks I am anti property, I am not…” Actually, I think you’re almost as needy as Steve-I-Love-Property-I-Can’t-Live-Without-It, Shoes. (Wonderful post, that one!~) You’re slightly more obsessed by Oz housing movements than Steve is, in fact… . Consider your obsession with clearance rates, for example… an ongoing week-by-week analysis…!~ This from a fella who swore black-and-blue he didn’t want a house. ;) The equivalent would be if I posted a weekly commentary on any dip in gold prices, or the current -30% plunge of stocks. I’m not that crass, or so obviously _smitten,_ Shoes. As I advised Rick, it’s all… Read more »
Ned S
Guest
Shoes: “I am in wealth accumalation phase of my life when I wind down to income phase I will look at investment property for the income stream, not the capital growth.” There’s a large element of that in it for me at least Shoes – Like what do I really care if my investments are earning me disposable income of 3% pa or 13% pa? – If I can live along quite happily on 3% pa and don’t foresee any strong likelihood any of the investments will need to be sold. I’d be a Financial Advisor’s nightmare though I guess:… Read more »
Biker
Guest
“I can live along quite happily on 3% pa…” That’s certainly a worst-case-scenario, Ned. In our No. 1 suburb, our rents are an average of $45.00 higher than in 2008, now delivering at least 4.7% _after_ tax. Rents in our No. 2 suburb are up just $20.00 per week more than in 2008, delivering at least 3.8% after tax*. We had predicted that difference in return and moved our major focus to the beach suburb over four years ago: higher incomes, lower unemployment, 1% vacancy rate, no expensive site works, higher rents. Had we listened to an FA we employed… Read more »
Stillgotshoeson
Guest
Comment by Biker on 20 July 2010: ~ This from a fella who swore black-and-blue he didn’t want a house. ;) Love your mis quotes.. I said I did not want a house at the moment, I also said even if the prices crash I still will probably not buy one I also said a portfolio should have cash/property and shares in it Comment by Biker on 20 July 2010: I’m not that crass, You are actually…. Comment by Biker on 19 July 2010: If I was in my forties and I observed that for the last two decades home… Read more »
Biker
Guest
“If I was in my forties (Which I am) and had observed two decades of steadily rising (read unsustainable growth) house prices, which I have, and that I can save and invest faster than home prices were rising I’d be starting to_seriously_consider staying out of the overheated market as those unsustainable capital growth figures on property are over for some time and in fact are more likely to decline in the areas I would consider to buy (in the future) I would wait and continue what I am doing and what is working well for me until such time as… Read more »
Bearamundi
Guest

I love the way human beings, as ‘tenants’ and ‘citizens’, have become utilitarian assets in someone elses portfolio/career. There is alot of CON_fidence_MAN, in the _eCONomy_too!!

89peterg
Guest
MadJak.. sure, my BS detector is full on too… but I try to seperate the “facts” from the exploitation of them. I dont look at singular weather events and say that they are, or are not, evidence of global warming. it all boils down to a tentative trust that scientists, on the whole, do not lie. as for the precautionary/insurance gun to the head,, I remember clearly the crisis in the US with the banksters sayng hand over the money, we are too big to fail…its another thing to be aware of, but it doesnt change the “facts”. bottom line,… Read more »
Chris in IT
Guest
“Comment by 89peterg on 20 July 2010:” My thoughts Peter, – Governments have absolute power in their borders (by way of being able to change laws and legislation to do whatever they want). External sources of energy change that balance. Behind closed doors I believe the real interest in exploiting this GW situation is that of national independence (Ie, not allowing OPEC like groups to control our operational conditions.). Whilst the national public might not be wooed by this I would be (by way of higher energy costs). -The ‘No Nuke’ band wagon brainwashed a whole generation, specifically mine (I… Read more »
Biker
Guest

“Here in Oz, your car would be charged off coal rather than oil.”

WHY?~ We’re now equipping our _rentals_ with solar electricity panels.

You’re in IT? (And you think _within_ the box?!) ;)

Chris in IT
Guest
Shoes, your financial calculations do not accurately capture the full picture. Firstly, most people consider their home their domain. Having property inspections is quite invasive and distasteful. Secondly, your are living at the whim of others. I recently sold out of property (about a year ago.) I’m sitting this out in rental land and noticed that if something is broken, a drawer slider for example the owner \ agent is under no obligation to fix it. Other factors such has undergassed aircon increase my energy costs, at no detriment to the owner. I have a pond with a non working… Read more »
Ned S
Guest

Recent Grantham stuff: Mr Grantham said Australia, along with Canada’s economy growth looked ”okay” but both were propped up ”by raw materials and, so far, un-popped housing bubbles”.

http://smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/home-price-falls-a-near-certainty-grantham-20100721-10k6t.html

Which may indicate that there is a bit to be said for having an economy that is propped up by raw materials and an un-popped housing bubble?

But that aside, a pretty important bit of the debate seems to be about whether “downshifts in inflation and interest rates are structural rather than cyclical”. (With Rory Robertson punting on ‘structural’.)

Biker
Guest

Yeah, I thought Rory buried Grantham’s arguments far quicker than he mobilised Keen. His comments about the US rustbelt certainly made sense.
We’d have to agree that any desirable coastal location in the US has retained value. (Miami? Stucco Paradise!*) Great article. Wish I’d kept it.

* Sonny Crockett (Miami Vice): “People in stucco houses shouldn’t throw quiche… “

Stillgotshoeson
Guest
Comment by Chris in IT on 21 July 2010: Shoes, your financial calculations do not accurately capture the full picture. Firstly, most people consider their home their domain. Having property inspections is quite invasive and distasteful. So yes, financially, renting make sense. But it’s not a nice way to live. To avoid Australia’s great deflation (and probably profit from it) you bear with it however. My post was purely on the financial aspect.. emotional/lifestyle aspect are too variable from person to person. Yes inspections and “less” security are impositions of renting.. Fear of losing a house you have scrimped and… Read more »
Ned S
Guest

“I have a pond with a non working pump, so the water if not empted with a siphon or bucket will be packed full of mossies within a week.” – If my tenant complained about that I’d send him a fiver and a scratchie in the post and ask him to do me the favour of putting a breeding pair of fish in there? :) :) :)

Ned S
Guest

Like seriously fellahs, if a bloke has a 90 year old nanna as his tenant then Yeh, maybe he’ll bend over backwards for the old dear. But the time before last I was told my garbage disposal wasn’t working I went over there and pulled out a pork chop bone. So the last time I was told it wasn’t working, the plumber went over there and pulled the garbage disposal unit out – Don’t any of you tenant types own screwdrivers? :)

Biker
Guest

“…the plumber went over there and pulled the garbage disposal unit out…”

HaHa… Love it!~

My stuff’s being ‘disappeared’ again, Ned.
Let’s see if this gets through!~ :)

Ned S
Guest
Reminds me of being in Russia Biker – The loo in my motel room was broken – On investigation I found that a bit of gerry rigged wire that held a couple of bits of plastic together had rusted through – So went out into the hallway and asked the attendant if she had any idea where I could find a bit of wire? (PS: There was an attendant on each motel floor.) She was quite taken aback – And informed me it was a job for a “technologist” (or somesuch?) – Can’t specifically recall what I found to fix… Read more »
Biker
Guest

We’ve found a lot of uses for ‘duck’ tape and cable ties over the years, Ned. One of our realtors has just advised us of new smoke alarm legislation. I rang a couple of tenants in older (5 – 10 y o) houses. One of them advised that compliance had just cost _him_ $2K per house up north. We’ve learned that all ours comply, but maintenance (minimum standard here is tap-with-a-broomstick) is $104 per house per year. Another tax write-off, I guess. :)

MadJak
Guest
89PeterG, It’s interesting how I actually agree with a lot of what you say, and my stance is so similar to yours (even though it is completely on the other side of the fence). Unfortunately the politics of this issue has made it basically impossible for people to get past the spin and the opportunism that is rampant. Where scientists have said we think this, or we think that, the opportunistic political scum have been bandying about “we now know this” and “we now know that”. All this has done is polarised the issue. For the record, I don’t deny… Read more »
annie
Guest

Hey Biker,

A friend of mine has an investment property and every year he just goes around and replaces the smoke alarms with new ones. They have a 12 month guarantee and it costs him about $50. Much cheaper and a lot less mucking around with companies testing etc.

Biker
Guest

Once retired I’ll probably do the same, Annie. We have a lot of rentals… .
As you say, it may be far cheaper to simply replace them all.

The legislation in WA seems fairly vague. All ours are hard-wired, with separate RCDs for power and lighting. A possible exception, built 2000, is being checked out today.

Corrosion and spiderwebs appear to be major concerns in the legislation.
New back-up batteries, a can of WD-40 and Mortein seem a simple solution to these issues. I guess the maintenance companies assume distance and time factors will guarantee them enough ongoing business… .

Ross
Guest

Ned/Biker, you guys aught to get a look at the standard German rental agreement translated and begin a lobby for them. If investors are genuinely after secure long term and even lifetime income & tenure and low costs with renters being legally forced to maintain the property then they are the answer. If you secretly want short term capital gains and tax breaks they are not. You are up against the Australian establishment though. They have set period terms for the renter to fund interior repainting, recarpeting, and more.

Biker
Guest

Thanks, Ross. We’re quite happy to maintain our rentals… and submit tax claims, including for travel, where applicable.

Several of our older rentals have doubled in value since we bought or built them five – six years ago. We’re happy to keep them up-to-scratch… .

Don
Guest

“We’ve found a lot of uses for ‘duck’ tape and cable ties over the years”

without the latter, quite a few mines I have worked at over the years would have incurred several percent more downtime or recovery losses :)

Cables ties and insertion rubber – a match made in heaven :)

Ned S
Guest
It could be entertaining to see a list of stories busted up under the headings “The most lowlife act a tenant has ever bunged on me” as opposed to “The most lowlife act a landlord has ever bunged on me” I guess? But not especially edifying I’d suggest! :) As things are, moving is a hassle and a cost for tenants. And having to find new tenants is a hassle and a cost for landlords. Plus landlords can pay to insure themselves against bad tenants. And tenants have a few move rights re moving on from a bad landlord than… Read more »
Stillgotshoeson
Guest
Comment by Ned S on 22 July 2010: With that maybe being about as near as we are likely to get to perfection given the “greedy landlord” versus “lousy tenant” debate has presumably been around since Neanderthals started renting caves to each other? There are 8 units where I live and my friend owns all 8 (inherited them when his parents died, bought out his sisters share) I have been here 3 years, there are tenants in 4 of the others that have been here years, the other 3 have had tenant turnover pretty much every year or 2. In… Read more »
rick e
Guest
89PeterG, I watch Tim the tool man and I think Randy his son. The story was about this business which polluted and the boss spoke to Randy about polluting and buying credits off other company’s to continue business. Randy went off his head as to how this could justify humanity’s existence in a justifiably reality. I cannot off memory tell if Tim the tool man lasted another season after this episode like that. So putting a price on pollution (which is not really carbon but all the other sh!t that goes with it) is not new! I saw this show… Read more »
wpDiscuz
Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@dailyreckoning.com.au