Winners, Losers, etc

ruggedtoast

kriss_boy wrote: »

If there is really high inflation and interest rates in years to come then wont house prices and goods get a bit cheaper as there is less demand for them?

No one knows - you can only do your best with the situation at hand after all. While normally I would agree with you about saving, and assuming this is about whether youre worrying about whether to get a mortgage now or not; the current government has made some really quite extraordinary measures to get people in debt, and those who lent to them, off the hook while transferring the liability onto the tax payer.

Savers on the other hand - have seen, devaluation, and a policy of low interest rates erode their wealth on one side of the scales, whilst on the other side taxation and inflation picks their pocket again.

Brown has bet that the majority of savers are old people who need house prices to stay up to finance their retirement, so will just about swallow the decimation of their savings.

It the tories continue this policy, which seems likely, you may be better off following the herd and taking on debt now while its still comparatively cheap.

lemonjelly

It appears to me to be an interesting concept, this thing about the labels we give. Why do we want to label ourselves, and those around us as winners & losers? It doesn't make sense to me.

It seems to happen more and more. But I can't understand why we measure our concept of self, and therefore our self worth based upon the volumous collection of material things we have & own (or the comparative lack of) in order to measure ourselves as successes.

Further, the way in which we do this, seems to me to be about comparing ourselves more to those close to us & around us. This really can't be a good thing. Firstly, if we are our own worst critic, then we're going to end up short when compared with our friends and family and loved ones. Secondly, it can only lead to envy in respect of those we are close to. Not a good thing.

This measurement thing is getting worse. I'm sure that we've all overheard - or even been party to - boastful conversations where someone has proclaimed about the masses of friends they have on facefook. Good lord! Friends aren't commodities, & aren't things we measure by volume. It's about worth!

To me, this focus on how we judge each other (by the amount of things which they have which give them some wierd elevated status) can only have negative impacts on society, and also individually - if we are constantly seen as lacking in status, or are less worthy because we don't have a house (or several), the latest clothes/phone/electricals or whatever, then how will that affect our perception of ourselves?

I judge myself as a winner based upon what I've acheived that day. Have I enjoyed the time I spent with family/friends? Have heard good music? Did I enjoy that visit to the theatre/art gallery? Have I made someone lagh, or has someone made me laugh? Have I contributed to the happiness of those around me? Have I helped someone with something they found difficult? have I learned something? Have I engaged in something I am passionate about? Did I read a good book? These are the things which I'll use to measure myself. Am I a better person? If so, result!

the_ash_and_the_oak

ruggedtoast wrote: »

the current government has made some really quite extraordinary measures to get people in debt, and those who lent to them, off the hook while transferring the liability onto the tax payer.

...

It the tories continue this policy, which seems likely, you may be better off following the herd and taking on debt now while its still comparatively cheap.

Aren't these two statements kind of contradictory? If you think those policies are going to be continued doesn't that imply debt remaining comparatively cheap?

the_ash_and_the_oak

Also pretty sure in this context that its kinda implicit that "winners and losers" are defined in money terms imo

izzybusy23

fedupfreda wrote: »

To get back to the OP - it's a very dangerous game to compare your life to someone elses, the situation is different and what suits you will not necessarily suit someone else. FWIW you have to make your own decisions in life and do what suits you - don't spend your life comparing your situation to others, you will only end up miserable. As long as you, and the people you share your life with, are happy, every one else can go take a running jump, metaphorically speaking

If you are living your life, making realistic choices and building a stable base for the future, then that is about all you can reasonably hope for. Anything else is a bonus. Those that made a killing through rampant HPI were just in the right place at the right time - and anyway, they didn't make that much of a killing, they still had to buy somewhere else vastly overpriced to live in, unless they were STR's - who are now probably worrying that their BTL landlord is going to sell the house out from under them, or are now struggling under increasing rent payments.

As the old saying goes, 'you pays your money and you takes your choice'. If you feel that buying a house in the current economic situation is a risk - then don't do it. Regardless of what all the other lemmings are doing. Conversely, if you feel it is a risk you can afford to take - then go ahead with confidence. Only you know your own situation. Always keep an eye out for the bumps in the road ahead, and take appropriate measures to deal with them. But don't spend so much time looking out for the pitfalls that you forget to enjoy the scenery on the ride. Life is for living - enjoy it- 'cos it is over all too soon.

:T Fantastic post.. really hit home that did. Thank you.

fedupfreda

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Well lets look at someone who bought in 1979 and compare to someone who didn't. Or lets look at someone else who bought in 1999 and compare with someone who didn't. Surely the HPI since both those times has enable them to live somewhere they wouldn't be able to if they had both rented?



Its not the investments imo here, its the HPI-to-STR that allows that. Lets take the person who bought a person who bought in London in 1999 and who sold in 2007. imo thats a lot of money thats come directly from HPI. I don't really see why this person would be needing to dip into the capital?

Depends what other investments they have to live on. There are quite a few people who thought HPI was going to be their saviour and enable them to clear their debts, put their kids through college, give them a pension to live on. Yes there were people who made an absolute killing - they are lucky - thats all - they just happened to be in the right place at the right time, I don't believe for one moment that people who bought their houses in the mid 90's thought 'we can sell this in 10 years and we will be made'. Trouble is as more people jumped on the bandwagon the ripple effect caused prices in other areas to rise, effectively wiping out many of the gains, and pricing everyone else out of the market. The fact remains that when you have sold one house - you have to find somewhere else to live. You either buy another over priced property - or end up renting. How many STR will be eligible for council property? None. So they will be renting through a private landlord - who may very well be struggling to finance a mortgage of his own.

To get back to your first point - anyone buying a house will have been able to live in a better house than they would have if they had been renting - but this is not necessarily due solely to HPI, more due to the parlous state of rented accommodation in this country. Owners of private houses tend to improve their property, over and above the minimum standard required of private landlords.

izzybusy23

lemonjelly wrote: »

It appears to me to be an interesting concept, this thing about the labels we give. Why do we want to label ourselves, and those around us as winners & losers? It doesn't make sense to me.

It seems to happen more and more. But I can't understand why we measure our concept of self, and therefore our self worth based upon the volumous collection of material things we have & own (or the comparative lack of) in order to measure ourselves as successes.

Further, the way in which we do this, seems to me to be about comparing ourselves more to those close to us & around us. This really can't be a good thing. Firstly, if we are our own worst critic, then we're going to end up short when compared with our friends and family and loved ones. Secondly, it can only lead to envy in respect of those we are close to. Not a good thing.

This measurement thing is getting worse. I'm sure that we've all overheard - or even been party to - boastful conversations where someone has proclaimed about the masses of friends they have on facefook. Good lord! Friends aren't commodities, & aren't things we measure by volume. It's about worth!

To me, this focus on how we judge each other (by the amount of things which they have which give them some wierd elevated status) can only have negative impacts on society, and also individually - if we are constantly seen as lacking in status, or are less worthy because we don't have a house (or several), the latest clothes/phone/electricals or whatever, then how will that affect our perception of ourselves?

I judge myself as a winner based upon what I've acheived that day. Have I enjoyed the time I spent with family/friends? Have heard good music? Did I enjoy that visit to the theatre/art gallery? Have I made someone lagh, or has someone made me laugh? Have I contributed to the happiness of those around me? Have I helped someone with something they found difficult? have I learned something? Have I engaged in something I am passionate about? Did I read a good book? These are the things which I'll use to measure myself. Am I a better person? If so, result!

Another fantastic post.. the facebook thing made me smile. Some friends and family of mine on facebook have over 200 or more friends.. makes me laugh as they have added every single person they knew from secondary school regardless if they have seen or spoken to them since they left school. I find that just odd. And people recommend people to me to be a friend who I haven't seen since I was 11 years old.. I'm really not that desperate to accumlate friends on facebook.

Its a weird world we live in now definately.. very materialistic and like you say, success seems to be about how much you earn, how much material stuff you own, what you drive etc, rather than what kind of person you turned out to be. I feel quite dispondent really about society in general lately.

ruggedtoast

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

Aren't these two statements kind of contradictory? If you think those policies are going to be continued doesn't that imply debt remaining comparatively cheap?

At some point interest rates have to go up and unemployment is still rising.

It appears that Brown will attempt to do whatever it takes to keep house prices high. Cameron has not given any indication that he will change tack - that would upset the Sun after all.

the_ash_and_the_oak

ruggedtoast wrote: »

At some point interest rates have to go up and unemployment is still rising.

It appears that Brown will attempt to do whatever it takes to keep house prices high. Cameron has not given any indication that he will change tack - that would upset the Sun after all.

If interest rates go up then how is this a continuation of a policy to encourage people into debt?

the_ash_and_the_oak

fedupfreda wrote: »

To get back to your first point - anyone buying a house will have been able to live in a better house than they would have if they had been renting - but this is not necessarily due solely to HPI, more due to the parlous state of rented accommodation in this country. Owners of private houses tend to improve their property, over and above the minimum standard required of private landlords.

Lets go back to the example of buying in 2000 and selling in 2007. Lets say they bought for 180k and sold for 400k. They are now in possession of 220k (minus selling costs) even if they never paid a penny off the mortgage

Regardless of any intention to sell and be made, do you think this person is better or worse off than a person who has rented from 2000 to 2007? Agree they then have to buy another 'overpriced property' but so did the person who rented for that period (except the 00-07 owner had a HPI enhanced deposit much larger than the renter). Or they STR, in which case they have a HPI enhanced sum of money they can do whatever they see fit with that the renter for that period didn't.