House Price Rises - A Good Thing?

meanmachine_2

You watch docs about the 70s - and I know times were uncertain then - but I see roads clear of traffic, the relatively low house prices, the less "need" for gadgets - and I do think it was a less stressful age.

People are either happy or they're not - having the latest things doesn't change that.

Prudent

Thriftylady wrote:

Its amazing though how many people just don't understand that paying more is not a good thing. I used to work in a mortgage lenders and it never failed to amaze me how many people were in an excellent position to negotiate a lower buying price but insisted that they wanted to pay more. Naturally this was often in the most sought after areas, and I can only assume that it was so that they would have something to boast about when they were down at the golf club or wherever....

How bizzare -they need to start using mse. I do not what you mean though. As a student I worked in an up market saddlery. Many customers bought the more expensive of two products simply because it was priced higher, regardless of whether there was any added benefit.

van_persie

meanmachine wrote:

...
And if property only went up in line with inflation, and there was no "panic" to buy, wouldn't stagnation set in, followed by a correction? Then, the whole thing goes back on its upward swing.
...

Sounds a bit like wishful thinking. If property did start to lose its "sparkle" and began to flatline or even sink slightly, I'd probably lose all interest.

Perverse, or what?

If this happened (ie: property simply rose in line with inflation) it would cease to be an investment asset and be regarded as simply a place to live. Precisely what it should be. But we're kidding ourselves if we think that'll ever happen...

tawnyowls

movieman wrote:

Pretty much the only people who benefit from house price inflation are downsizers, people who inherit houses from their parents, property developers and the government

Don't forget the buy-to-let brigade - not the ones owning a second house which is their pension, but rather those owning dozens or hundreds of houses, thus keeping the house prices artificially high and preventing first-time buyers from entering the market, so they have to rent, thus keeping rental prices high, thus encouraging even more people to buy to let, and so on and so on.

Isn't it time there was a limit imposed on how many houses people could buy? Thanks to John Prescott, there is a finite supply of houses (it's not like buying a car, where if you can't afford X amount there's usually a cheaper one at another dealer and you don't have to keep the car in a garage in that particular place) and we seem to be rapidly becoming a country where again the wealth is in the hands of landowners and the rest are screwed.