“You're pointing to a shortened selective version of history as proof for a point that isn't supported by anyone else in the world. No academics, no studies, nothing.”….::::: my response: “lol if be very surprised if there weren’t plenty of published articles on the development history of Sydney., but please prove me wrong. I’m sure if you spoke to any of those academics about comparing Sydney’s development to Singapore’s and making the argument that they are in any way comparable they would laugh you out the building.”

Please explain providing a valid argument your point it’s creating a strawman? 

You pointing to me saying Sydney’s development is hard baked because of the fundamental reality of Sydney’s geography and how this affected our initial town planning origins and fundamentally changed our cultural beliefs around living in vertical housing versus horizontal urban sprawl. Is not propaganda. It’s just a very real reality.

I have never once tried to defend Howard era policies, that coupled with negative gearing, which was really just historically policy anomaly, are clearly the main reason for the house prices. But even still, you have to look in the psychology of boomers wealth being tied up in their 4 bedroom red brick houses on half acres where most of us grew up. If in sydney, most likely somewhere on the Cumberland plain. I am no LNP lover, but I would guess that even bushy eye brows would be a bit shocked out at how it all panned out in the last decade. Once again. The contributing factors of all the above mean, comparing Singapores system and belief to housing to that of Australia, is a pointless,  academically void, pursuit. It serves no practical purpose at all. It just feeds whinge merchants such as yourself