The Myth of record debt!

Turnbull2000

You people do realise these two dimwits have been given space on the BBC before, right? This is from 2007...

Media stories suggest the nation's debt is at worrying levels. But what's the full story, behind the statistics in the headlines?

Debt is basically fine. In fact, we're coining it in the UK, with more wealth stretching ever further ahead of the amount we owe.

So we hear that the British owe more on their mortgages than anywhere else in Europe. But we seldom hear the obvious corollary - that the British also own more housing wealth than anywhere else in Europe.

Rising debts are an indication of rising ability to borrow, resulting from rising wealth.

In summary, our consumer debt does not matter as house prices always go up

Generali

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I agree. It's a disgrace and something should be done about him. Carolt is just as bad. Martin should kick those two off MSE and do the rest of us a favour.

As I also said, !!!!!! isn't the only one that gets argumentative.

tomstickland

But we seldom hear the obvious corollary - that the British also own more housing wealth than anywhere else in Europe.

Imaginary wealth.

StevieJ

tomstickland wrote: »

Imaginary wealth.

Not so imaginary when you don't have to pay the rent when you are retired!:D

tomstickland

If people buy a house in 2001 and by 2007 it's worth twice as much then the increase in value is imaginary wealth, unless they sell at that moment.

It's back to the two antique dealers selling a mirror to each other for ever increasing sums of money and thinking that they're making profit.

StevieJ

tomstickland wrote: »

If people buy a house in 2001 and by 2007 it's worth twice as much then the increase in value is imaginary wealth, unless they sell at that moment.

It's back to the two antique dealers selling a mirror to each other for ever increasing sums of money and thinking that they're making profit.

Does that mean that negative equity is imaginary negative equity?

IveSeenTheLight

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I think it's entirely accurate - the group of people who regularly throw accusations along the lines of "You are negative" "you are a doom monger" "you just want the market to fall" "you bears will never buy" hardly ever post an actual factual counterpoint to the post/opinion being discussed - they just cast aspersions on the personality of the poster for daring to quote an article that exposes the state of the economy or expressing the opinion that things are screwed.

"Anti bear" would be better description actually since a truly bullish person would have some solid arguments as to why the market had a good outlook and why now was a sensible time to buy, not just negative epithets.

Even if you think that at some point along the line prices will recover and exceed the 2007 peak that doesn't qualify as bullish - I believe that too, it's a given that prices go up over the long term. As does inflation and wages .... long term.

The point is that anyone looking to buy a house at this juncture better have a pretty good reason to buy (probably borrowing money to do so) into an asset that is likely to fall by tens of thousands of quid over the coming year.

Now there will be some who still will buy for personal reasons and hopefully they will do so with an informed opinion on what they are getting in to - but I'm damn sure not going to cheerlead anyone into buying now with some false bullishness when I know full well that they will be putting themselves into financial troubled waters at just about the worst time possible.

Are you a politician?........ No........ Well maybe you should be.

I ask you a very simple question which you choose to ignore and answer something else (above)

I can only assume that your sentence below in which you accuse people of making not making rational , detached judgements is irrational itself and you dont want to admit it.

Originally Posted by !!!!!!?
I think we've hit on the crux of the resident 'bulls' - they just can't make rational, detached judgements

Really2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Are you a politician?........ No........ Well maybe you should be.

I ask you a very simple question which you choose to ignore and answer something else (above)

I can only assume that your sentence below in which you accuse people of making not making rational , detached judgements is irrational itself and you dont want to admit it.

Funny he as never done that before.;)

JonnyBravo

!!!!!!? wrote: »

I'd wait until I'd been in my home for at leat a year before even thinking about BTL, should give time for the market to settle.

Plus given that I'd own my primary home outright I'd be leveraged at 2:1 at most over the whole deal, probably less as a BTL would be something like a cheap flat or modest house. Not exactly high leverage stakes.

I thought you'd always said you thought BTL flats were the worst place to be for a BTL investor?
Oversupply and all that?
FWIW, I agree that a house is a better bet.
Why the change of heart?

JonnyBravo

!!!!!!? wrote: »

The point is that anyone looking to buy a house at this juncture better have a pretty good reason to buy (probably borrowing money to do so) into an asset that is likely to fall by tens of thousands of quid over the coming year.

Now there will be some who still will buy for personal reasons and hopefully they will do so with an informed opinion on what they are getting in to - but I'm damn sure not going to cheerlead anyone into buying now with some false bullishness when I know full well that they will be putting themselves into financial troubled waters at just about the worst time possible.

To be fair to !!!!!!? this is a fair point of view and one which he's moved on.

He used to post plenty of stuff about not buying no matter what, but to be fair, he listened to reasoned argument, (I know cos I was one of the ones putting it forward back when I could be ars ed to argue), and now realises there are obviously some scenarios which mean no matter what the market conditions some people want to/have to buy.