Should the price of fuel in Australia at this point be so high?
First price isn't artificially maintained at a level. When a refining company signs a contract to buy crude from a supplier, it promises to buy at a certain price with options for increase and decrease due to the fluctuating prices in the market. And it buys crude to build up a certain buffer to supply itself for a certain duration, in case of supply problems. As it had bought oil at a higher price, it would be reluctant to lower the prices even if the current crude it buys is at a lower cost. If it buys oil from the open market, it has no other option than to pass on the hike on to the consumers, so a more intense fluctuation in the prices of oil at the point, where you buy it. Some airlines used hedging to take care of the spurts in the price of oil, to mantian their operating margins.  And moreover refining and distribution is a very low margin business, so the company has an incentive to sell at a higher cost if required. Fuel prices are regulated in most countires. The way its regulated differs. Essentially the idea is once the retail prices are up, they are normally kept that level so that a buffer profit is built, now if the fuel prices increase beyond the retail price can still be kept same using the buffer built up. (disclaimer: I don't answer specifically about Australia) As long as people don't question car usage and urban sprawl, and thus are willing to pay a premium for being stuck in traffic jams every working day, I don't see any reason why fuel producers wouldn't increase their prices. Given increasing demand from China and other rapidly growing countries, given state of remaining world resources, I think that fuel is a bargain nowadays.
This comment might sound like a circle jerk but I think it's important to say. Indeed innovation is what creates more productivity, which is fueled by debt, but debt is fueled by real savings, which comes from under consuming, which is easier when your productivity is higher. The government can stimulate innovation yes, but only at the expense of someone else.   What's really scary is the federal reserve has been manufacturing all the savings for nearly a decade now. So there's a complete mismatch between credit and savings, and the overall economy. The actual price of money itself is manufactured too, so just about all asset prices are inherently flawed in my view.   I think it's important to piggy back your point about innovation and how productivity can't really go down, because inventions and new methods of producing goods don't disappear(once we come up with the combustible engine or a new drug for example, it's now here forever ideally, it's work that we don't have to do all over again).  What brings on a crash or feeling like we're going backwards in terms of progress comes when we somehow manage to go through a boom bust (like in 2008), but then take on all this debt, normally we can pay off debt but when the government manufactures it, and credit is created out of nothing, that's when you get into problems like not being able to pay it back - because it wasn't truly real or representative of real savings. I feel like I'm ranting now but I think this stuff is super important and I think you understand it. 1 - For FHA loans PMI is required for mortages where there is not at least 20% equity.  Bank Financed Non-FHA loans may have other standards. If you are getting an FHA loan ,if possible put down 20%  so that you do not have to pay PMI.  That said your PMI costs should be reduced by the size of your down payment since the PMI covers the difference between your equity value (Based on the appraisal at time of purchase) and 20% equity value of the home. So if you buy a home for 425k(assuming 100% appraisal price) 20% equity would be 85k.  So if you put 10% down you would be paying PMI until you accrue an addition 42500 in equity.  And you will be paying PMI on that for about 12 years(typical on 30 year mortgage) or until you refinance(having home appraised at higher value than purchase price where you would have 20% equity).  There are ways to get out of PMI early but few banks are willing to help you through the hoops unless you refinance(and pay more closing costs). 2 - Different banks offer better rates or other benefits for paying points.  We paid $300 for a 1.5% reduction in our interest rate (less than 1%) but it was called a point. We were offered a few other points (.25% for 2500 and an one time on demand interest rate adjustment for ~3k) but declined but they may make more sense on a 425k home than our more modest one.  You can talk to a banker about this now, get preapproved(which helps with getting offers accepted sometimes), and find out more details about the mortgage they will offer you.  This meeting should be free(I would say will but some bank would charge just to prove me wrong) and help answer your questions more authoritatively than anyone here can.   3 - The costs will come out of your down payment.  So if you put down 42.5k down your costs will come out of that.  So you will probably end up with 30~35k being applied towards your purchase price with the rest going for costs.  You can tell the banker you want to put 10% towards the price and the banker will give you a down payment probably around 50k to cover costs etc.  (My figures are hopefully intentionally high better to find out that it will cost less than my guesstimate than get your hopes up just to find out the costs are higher than expected.) why should I have any bias in favour of my local economy? The main reason is because your expenses are in the local currency.   If you are planning on spending most of your money on foreign travel, that's one thing.  But for most of us, the bulk of our expenses are incurred locally.  So it makes sense for us to invest in things where the investment return is local.   You might argue that you can always exchange foreign results into local currency, and that's true.  But then you have two risks.  One risk you'll have anywhere:  your investments may go down.  The other risk with a foreign investment is that the currency may lose value relative to your currency.  If that happens, even a good performing investment can go down in terms of what it can return to you.  That fund denominated in your currency is really doing these conversions behind the scenes.   Unless the bulk of your purchases are from imports and have prices that fluctuate with your currency, you will probably be better off in local investments.  As a rough rule of thumb, your country's import percentage is a good estimate of how much you should invest globally.  That looks to be about 20% for Australia.  So consider something like 50% local stocks, 20% local bonds, 15% foreign stocks, 5% foreign bonds, and 10% local cash.  That will insulate you a bit from a weak local currency while not leaving you out to dry with a strong local currency.   It's possible that your particular expenses might be more (or less) vulnerable to foreign price fluctuations than the typical.  But hopefully this gives you a starting point until you can come up with a way of estimating your personal vulnerability. "The way to resolve your dilemma is to consult the price-to-rent ratio of the property. According to smartasset.com: The price-to-rent ratio is a measure of the relative affordability of renting and buying in a given housing market. It is calculated as the ratio of home prices to annual rental rates. So, for example, in a real estate market where, on average, a home worth $200,000 could rent for $1000 a month, the price-rent ratio is 16.67. That’s determined using the formula: $200,000 ÷ (12 x $1,000). Smartasset.com also goes on to give a table comparing different cities' price-to-rent ratio and then claim that the average price-to-rent ratio is currently 19.21. If your price-to-rent ratio is lower than 19.21, then, yes, your rents are more expensive than the average house. Smartasset.com claims that a high price-to-rent ratio is an argument in favor of tenants ""renting"" properties while a low price-to-rent ratio favors people ""buying"" (either to live in the property or to just rent it out to other people). So let's apply the price-to-rent ratio formula towards the properties you just quoted. There's a specific house I could buy for 190 (perhaps even less) that rents for exactly 2000 / month. 190K/(2000 * 12) = 7.92 There's a house for sale asking 400 (been on the market 2 yrs! could probably get for 350) which rents for 2800 /month.  (400K)/(2800*12) = 11.90 (350K)/(2800*12) = 10.42 One can quite easily today buy a house for 180k-270k that would rent out for 1700-2100 / month.  Lower Bound: (180K)/(1700*12) = 8.82 Upper Bound: (270K)/(2100*12) = 10.71 Even so, the rental returns here seem ""ridiculously high"" to me based on other markets I've noticed. Considering how the average price-to-rent ratio is 19.21, and your price-to-rent ratio ranges from 7.92 to 11.90, you are indeed correct. They are indeed ""ridiculously high"". Qualification: I was involved in real estate, and used the price-to-rent ratio to determine how long it would take to ""recover"" a person's investment in the property. Keep in mind that it's not the only thing I care about, and obviously the price-to-rent ratio tends to downplay expenses involved in actually owning properties and trying to deal with periods of vacancy. There's also the problem of taking into account demand as well. According to smartasset.com, Detroit, MI has the lowest price-to-rent ratio (with 6.27), which should suggest that people should buy properties immediately in this city. But that's probably more of a sign of people not wanting to move to Detroit and bid up the prices of properties. EDIT: I should also say that just because the properties are ""ridiculously expensive"" right now doesn't mean you should expect your rents to decrease. Rather, if rents keep staying at their current level, I'd predict that the property values will slowly increase in the future, thereby raising the price-to-rent ratio to 'non-ridiculous' mode." Basic utilities like water and electricity are highly regulated.  The price is set by a certain and small amount above cost, which is audited at several layers by government and private entities.  I'm just not sure why someone would be so far from reality, I apologize if my response jarred you. Well i'm not saying it will be terrible, i could have said this wrong but it might be terrible. Dollar is not the international currency just in oil but mostly everything. Different countries uses dollar to trade, this is one of the core reasons of US economy being the strongest. US should not be tolerant about this sort of stuff since if this trend continuous it could be disastrous. It will be interesting to see how gas station employment is affected by oil demand and EV sales.  Bloomberg thinks EV adoption will crash oil prices by 2023.  https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/  That won't create a huge change in station employment, but will affect oil company profitability. Yes, the US dollar is the standard for all global trade - IMF driven  And China has been going for that title for the past decade and this is a very smart and tactical way to do it  If this goes through, gold &amp; oil might become really good place to be. The US has been in a supply run and kept the price of oil low.  Things are changing quick...