lazen
Activist
Posts:326
 |
| 05/01/2008 7:19 AM |
 Alert
|
House prices are so inflated that even if there was a 75%drop to £20,000 for average you lot would still be unable to afford it and grumble that it was too dear
Thats because Im guessing you are all in negative savings?
You all owe between £2000 and £20000 to credit card companies
having to struggle to live.
Dwelling on housing collapse is likely to be an unrewarding pastime unless you can profit personally from others peoples misery.
Freudenshaft is a meagre reward.
To deal with the housing problem you need to tackle its causes
like over population in the wrong places that is both illegal and
a liability. |
|
|
|
|
chefdave
Activist
Posts:482
|
| 05/01/2008 7:55 AM |
Alert
|
If a house only cost me £20,000 interest at 5% would only cost me £1000 per year. I could easily afford that, pay off the capital relatively quickly and pay any other outstanding loans.
Its got nothing to do with overpopulation. In fact your post is so stupid its bordering on trolling. |
|
|
|
|
SquatNow
Activist
Posts:504
|
| 05/01/2008 8:09 AM |
Alert
|
The OPs post was downrights stupid. If prices dropped by 75% of course it would make houses more affordable... but a 75% reduction would leave an aveage price of £45k not £20k... average price is arnd £180k.
Of course, no-one will be able to get a mortgage unless they have 20-50% deposit.
At the peak of the crash, most of the properties will be bought up by a small numbe (50-100) big landowners who have multi-billion £ savings.
That's why we are demanding changes to the taxation sytem to prevent land speculators turning us all into serfs. |
|
SquatNow - Web site now ready!
www.squatnow.com
Promoting Social Squatting |
|
|
chefdave
Activist
Posts:482
|
| 05/01/2008 8:23 AM |
Alert
|
I love the language you've adopted Lazen "you lot"... "are all in negative savings", I guess its alright for some eh?
so far BTLers have profited very handsomely on the back of other peoples misery, maybe now its someone else's turn |
|
|
|
|
Magrathea
Activist
Posts:435
|
| 05/01/2008 9:03 AM |
Alert
|
| Lazen, you have no clue as to the causes of the problem. 'Overpopulation' drives up rents, yet rents have not risen that much. The cause of the problem is that real estate is being used as an 'investment' medium. This 'use' for real estate creates a kind of artificial scarcity, in which there is enough of what is needed, but the exchange price is pushed up beyond its utility in production. |
|
|
|
|
lazen
Activist
Posts:326
|
| 06/01/2008 5:41 AM |
Alert
|
Of course there will always be people in denial who stick their head in the sand but fortunately this behaviour does not alter realities.
I still contend that over popluation is a major factor in the current housing stress.
The number of houses in this country has probably stayed the same since Councils ceased building in the early 1980s.
I do not know the total number of houses in this country and will not guess
but one things sure they aint building many more at present.
So simple arithmetic means that if the population has risen by a couple of million(no one seems to very sure about that either what with all the undeclared residents and wot not)it means that an extra 2 million want housing.As Margarita says the majority of these extra folks will cram into cheap slum rented acoommodation in the cities.(How theyve even managed to fit in there beats me!
But a small percentage the better off proffessional ones or whatever will be able to afford actual houses in million pound Kensington Mews and the like.So you are right only a slight effect is being felt apart from in small enclaves where sometimes whole swathes of semi detached housing etc is occupied in a similiar fashion.
Meanwhile discontent rages through the renters who mainly desire "their own home"so they can raise families.Council Housing is all stuck at a standstill and many Council Properties look ugly so its dubious if all but the poor would want to reside there for free.
So we have too many poor people wanting their own home.
This puts pressure on the market psychologicaly and politically.
Of course all these mini wage dreamers will not get a home.Who will build them?
I know Im not!
|
|
|
|
|
chefdave
Activist
Posts:482
|
| 06/01/2008 6:38 AM |
Alert
|
Lazen, I simply cannot agree with your immigration theory. I'm not going to deny that the U.K has seen a surge in immigration recently, but rather than cause the housing bubble I would argue that it has simply exacerbated it (only to a degree though) as landlords are now able to cash on the new workforce.
Poland for example, along with 9 other countries joined the EU in the middle of 2004, by which time the housing bubble was well under way, so to blame them seems a bit rich to me.
Are you seriously suggesting that the U.K now has no homes left whatsoever? You've only got to look at Rightmove, Property Finder, or your nearest 50 estate agents to realise that there are loads of empty BTL properties on offer. There is no shortage, just way too much speculation.
|
|
|
|
|
SquatNow
Activist
Posts:504
|
| 06/01/2008 12:10 PM |
Alert
|
| 1 million empty houses says lazen is talking out of his/her arse. |
|
SquatNow - Web site now ready!
www.squatnow.com
Promoting Social Squatting |
|
|
gingerboris
Concerned Citizen
Posts:61
|
| 06/01/2008 12:21 PM |
Alert
|
Firstly my wife and I owe absolutely zero to lenders not a single penny! Secondly we have savings of around 10K give or take an odd major purchase…I work F/T in local got and my wife works albeit P/T in care. We are by most peoples standards `poor` but at a push could afford a 1 bed flat – but come on 100K+ for a 1 bed flat in Northampton!!! That is not just nor really suitable…
Immigration has undeniably pushed demand for housing up but prices OTT for 7-8 years way before EU issues…ultimately government to blame – anyway most Poles will leave in a few years. Biggest issue is upper middle classes and above + paranoid and deluded over 50`s who think house prices and wealth are linked – which they only are in a paper sense. Also greedy BTL who have been allowed to get away with it by Labour…
Solution? Tax 2nd homes…regulate sale of new developments to those who have a need for a house and not investors – give bona fide FTB`s tax breaks for 3 years after purchase of 1st house and stop subsiding landowners via EU (farming) also boycott National mis-trust!…simple but unfortunately I’m not Gordon Brown! |
|
|
|
|
lazen
Activist
Posts:326
|
|
slicedcake
Activist
Posts:314
|
| 07/01/2008 11:35 AM |
Alert
|
UK top 10 rich list:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4405379.stm
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
chefdave
Activist
Posts:482
|
| 07/01/2008 12:29 PM |
Alert
|
'
Lazen, although I know you're a fully grown adult - in another statement you told us you were "a veteran of the 1970s reccessionus" sic - you're postings reflect that of an angry hormone crazed teenager. I'm sorry if this offends you. If you expect people to take you seriously though maybe you should refrain from posting topics with titles such as 'housing, why don't they build their own?'
Why are you talking about French socialist families? How do you know that they're socialist? Are estate agents open in France on a Saturday afternoon?, they're not in the U.K.
You are quite obviously anti capitalist but also anti-immigration. So you're pro state but anti immigration, this only leads me to one quite scary conclusion....
Your postings raise more questions than they answer.
*But, that's not to say I don't enjoy reading them or indeed having the chance to argue with you!*
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
chefdave
Activist
Posts:482
|
| 07/01/2008 6:55 PM |
Alert
|
Right, now i've got off my high horse it time to answer Lazen which may be a mistake as its 2.12am (no matter what the post timer says) and I've had a few, but here goes nothing. You state "WE LIVE IN A MERCILESS CAPITALIST SYSTEM", however as I've heard Magrathea contest numerous times before the land situation actually works against the fundamentals of capitalism. Capitalism is all about producing something then within a free and fair market and selling that item for a lower price than your rivals. Land investment however inherently works against capitalism though, as importantly it increases costs rather than reducing them.
Yeah its a drag but the only way capitalism can have an effect is for companies to initially overcome these initial constaints (by having a decent sellable product) and then buying up land upon the back of their success.
Cannot you not see therefore if I was a small time capitalist the land system would actually work against me rather for me? It would raise my costs and make it more difficult fo me to compete in the market place. No matter what type of capitalist I was, shoe shop owner, take away shop owner, mechanical garage owner etc etc.
To be fair you are raising so many issues its quite difficult to deal with them all for example; Socialism, Capitalism, Thatcher, inflation, indepentent schools, the present govenment, bankers, the slave trade, squatting, crime, its quite overwhelming!
However one of your initial points is that the renties in France have increased the prices, but isn't it the case that its actually the landlords that have done this. Those those that rent from these landlords actually increase the costs for capitalists therefore once again making it more difficult for them to compete in the market place.
If you can narrow your arguments I hope it can focus both of us onto what is really going on and where exactly any inequalities lie.
|
|
|
|
|
Asteve
Activist
Posts:930
|
| 10/01/2008 2:13 AM |
Alert
|
Lazen: "Thats because Im guessing you are all in negative savings?"
You confuse not owning a house with being a debtor. Curious, since the converse is true for most of working age.
Personally, I need a 30% decrease in nominal price... and 40% would make my life easy. With the latter, if I pulled out all the stops, I wouldn't need a mortgage.
For me, it is clear what is going wrong. Prices have been bid up by lax lending standards and mortgage fraud in the largest speculative bubble the world has ever seen. Luckily, for me - if not everyone else - the IMF [ 1 ] reckons houses in the UK are over-valued by 40% and even a vested interest such as HSBC bank [ 2 ] predicts price drops of 30%.
Smile... it's 2008... the property market is in meltdown... all one needs now is restraint.
[ 1 ] http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/house-prices/article.html?in_article_id=425420&in_page_id=57
[ 2 ]
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/property_and_mortgages/article2963482.ece
|
|
|
|
|
Magrathea
Activist
Posts:435
|
| 10/01/2008 3:28 AM |
Alert
|
lazen wrote:
“Of course there will always be people in denial who stick their head in the sand but fortunately this behaviour does not alter realities.”
Yes indeed
“I still contend that over population is a major factor in the current housing stress.”
Population pressure tends to push rents up; the house price boom was about exchange price, not rents. Pole plasterers who lived ten to a room and worked for minimum wage were not buying real estate in the UK and the fact that rents have not been rising particularly shows that their presence was not ‘rent pushing’ the exchange price. What is confusing you, is how there can be no shortage and high price; the reason for this is that real estate is being used as an investment medium and this creates an artificial scarcity which pushes prices up to or beyond utility. |
|
|
|
|
Magrathea
Activist
Posts:435
|
| 10/01/2008 7:01 AM |
Alert
|
Asteve:
"For me, it is clear what is going wrong. Prices have been bid up by lax lending standards and mortgage fraud in the largest speculative bubble the world has ever seen"
And yet the price of cars has not..odd that
Back to the drawing board |
|
|
|
|
Asteve
Activist
Posts:930
|
| 10/01/2008 7:08 AM |
Alert
|
Magrathea: "And yet the price of cars has not..odd that"
This time the bubble has been real-estate.
In the past we've seen bubbles in everything from Tulips to railways to TMT "new media" stocks. They're all the same if you look at them dispassionately. They represent a popular hysteria and irrationality. One thing is shown by history over and over again: stupid people who speculate as if they were in a casino eventually loose everything. This time it will be no different... it has taken a while but "times they are a changing."
|
|
|
|
|
Magrathea
Activist
Posts:435
|
| 10/01/2008 7:36 AM |
Alert
|
In the past we've seen bubbles in everything from Tulips to railways to TMT "new media" stocks.
Yep bubbles can happen..however bubbles in real estate are virtually inescapable and their effects are inescapable, because real estate is an intrinsic cartell.
"They're all the same if you look at them dispassionately."
No they aren't; the tulip bubble (for instance) did not raise the costs for innocent bystanders
The thing is i can go back over our conversations and show you where you conceeded this, but it is pointles; your greed and self interest is preventing you evaluate rationaly; you will conceed and then backtrack.
|
|
|
|
|
Asteve
Activist
Posts:930
|
| 10/01/2008 8:22 AM |
Alert
|
Magrathea: "Yep bubbles can happen..however bubbles in real estate are virtually inescapable and their effects are inescapable, because real estate is an intrinsic cartell."
Why, then do you think real-estate has trebbled over the last ~10 years? Was real-estate one third as inescapable 10 years ago? I don't think that real estate has changed much. Credit, however, has changed - a lot.
Magrathea: "No they aren't; the tulip bubble (for instance) did not raise the costs for innocent bystanders."
You're thinking insufficiently laterally. People invested in tulips, and lost all their money... for anyone who plans to retire, this is inescapable. Every bubble affects its victims differently.
BTW - you're not viewing the bubbles dispassionately by using terms like "innocent bystanders". 
Magrathea: "The thing is i can go back over our conversations and show you where you conceeded this, but it is pointles; your greed and self interest is preventing you evaluate rationaly; you will conceed and then backtrack."
To your claim that my judgement is clouded by greed and self-interest, I raise that you're blinkered and resorting to ad hominem.
We both perceive injustices in the system of real-estate... I see many ways that this can be tackled - you see only one.
I concede your many valid points, but don't quietly accept non sequitur.
|
|
|
|
|
Magrathea
Activist
Posts:435
|
| 10/01/2008 10:07 AM |
Alert
|
Asteve wrote:
"Why, then do you think real-estate has trebbled over the last ~10 years? Was real-estate one third as inescapable 10 years ago? I don't think that real estate has changed much. Credit, however, has changed - a lot."
Taxation was removed from real estate in a particular way that encouraged price speculation..hey presto.
The extra credit availability is a product of the increasing price of real estate and at the same time drives the higher prices; but the actual cause of this feedback loop itself is the taxation. You are only seeing a third of the relationship – you note that extra credit availability acts to raise prices but miss that the heightened prices make credit more available and that taxation sets this circular relationship.
Asteve wrote:
“You're thinking insufficiently laterally. People invested in tulips, and lost all their money... for anyone who plans to retire, this is inescapable. Every bubble affects its victims differently.”
Now there is a twisted piece of language; so all one need to do to avoid these costs is not buy tulips?
The costs of real estate inflation are not avoided by not buying real estate; because the use of real estate is an unavoidable human fact.
You only consider your approach ‘even handed’ and sophisticated because you do not really understand that you are treating the morally legitimate interest of those who expend effort, to get the rewards of their efforts on an equal footing with the interests of an ‘earth owner’ to receive without effort the benefits of the efforts of others, due to the nature of geometry - these are not comparable moral claims. You are not being evenhanded or ‘lateral’, but rather insisting that a gross injustice is upheld so that you may benefit without effort, from the resource locks and lack of liberty it creates.
|
|
|
|
|