£1.2tn given to old from young

Harry_Powell

mbga9pgf wrote: »

If they had let prices fall, we would have been down 30%, the recession would have been worse, yes, but the correction would have been over.

Wouldn't you then be in the situation that house prices would have been 30% cheaper, but that you could have been 100% poorer (i.e. unemployed) due to the much deeper recession, possibly even depression.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Credit was far tighter. No matter how smart you dressed to pop in to see the bank manager.

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Becuase SENSIBLE lending limits of max 3 times salary meant you couldnt!

so the credit expansion was a good thing as it allowed more people to buy a home

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

so the credit expansion was a good thing as it allowed more people to buy a home

Tell that to the hundreds of thousands that are in serious financial trouble now, and will the million or so that are going to seriously, seriously struggle if rates shoot up due to problems in the Bond markets. They are playing a dangerous game of russian roulette with their lives yet society repeatedly is telling people, thats the Norm.

Canada has very strict mortgage controls, yet they have a housing market that functions perfectly well.

Home ownership would have undoubtedly increased as we became more affluent; the difference being now you have to mortage yourself practically for your entire working life, thats not a help for home ownership, thats desasterous for mine and future generations. More disposable moolah = more expenditure on state produced things or potential for increased state taxation (public services), rather than lacing banks balance sheets and risking the entire economy that is overstreched on an essential asset class that could have been kept cheap with market controls.

mbga9pgf

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Wouldn't you then be in the situation that house prices would have been 30% cheaper, but that you could have been 100% poorer (i.e. unemployed) due to the much deeper recession, possibly even depression.

Its possible, yes. But we wouldnt be needing to prop the banks up to the extent that the economy has major drag, employment growth will remain constrained and the future debt liability will seriously increase tax or decrease public services or both for the next 50 years.

zygurat789

This thread is symptomatic of the real problem with this country. The post boomers have always had it good thanks to their parents and now they are trying to buy a house they think it should all be just as easy for them.
Perhaps they should try working hard for their money instead of forever runnunig to the bank of Mum & Dad.
To buy a house they have to give up other things on which they spend their money like binge drinking, wasting petrol by driving too fast and not buying disposable items.
There is very little difference between the ratio of house prices to salaries now and when I first bought. Just because your parents lived in a 3 bed detatched doesn't mean that the next generation should start in the same.
We all had to start in starter homes.
Stop moaning, do something positive - like save and you will know what we had to go through to give you ungrateful kids what you have taken from us

Harry_Powell

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Its possible, yes. But we wouldnt be needing to prop the banks up to the extent that the economy has major drag, employment growth will remain constrained and the future debt liability will seriously increase tax or decrease public services or both for the next 50 years.

But would we even have an economy if we didn't prop up the banks? How would any growth be funded if the banks had been left to go under?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So one year and your saying it was therefore harder?

LOL. Think this is simply going round and round in circles. But I don't think those thanking that can say they had it THAT hard compared to today if they see that as hard.

Did I say it was harder I know it's a lot harder to buy now but it wasn’t as easy as some would have you believe.

ukcarper

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Because SENSIBLE lending limits of max 3 times salary meant you couldnt!

I got more than 3x my salary in 1972

mbga9pgf

Harry_Powell wrote: »

But would we even have an economy if we didn't prop up the banks? How would any growth be funded if the banks had been left to go under?

We would have had to Crl-Alt-Delete the economy, yes, it would be painful. But we know we have a flexible labour market and the ability to overcome. I hate to point it out, but this country does much more than financial services. With the future tax haul required to plug the deficit, the writing is on the wall IMO for london as a future world leading financial centre. The perks arent there, the BRIC nations will steal all our thunder as they have the capital that we !!!!!! up the wall on cheap china imported tat and exported services. What do we have? A Sh*tload of debt and no real way of paying it off.

Instead, we supported a system with obscene amounts of future taxpayer liability, for what? A system that was proved that it was a failure. Next time will not treat us as kindly. And you bet, there will be a next time. As long as the entire economy relies on debt as a way of life, debt for future consumption, we face a Major problem. You see, at some stage, we will have to start paying it back, or we will have to default as a state.

If there are any other options, please let Gordon Brown know.

Harry_Powell

mbga9pgf wrote: »

We would have had to Crl-Alt-Delete the economy, yes, it would be painful. But we know we have a flexible labour market and the ability to overcome. I hate to point it out, but this country does much more than financial services. With the future tax haul required to plug the deficit, the writing is on the wall IMO for london as a future world leading financial centre. The perks arent there, the BRIC nations will steal all our thunder as they have the capital that we !!!!!! up the wall on cheap china imported tat and exported services. What do we have? A Sh*tload of debt and no real way of paying it off.

Instead, we supported a system with obscene amounts of future taxpayer liability, for what? A system that was proved that it was a failure. Next time will not treat us as kindly. And you bet, there will be a next time. As long as the entire economy relies on debt as a way of life, debt for future consumption, we face a Major problem. You see, at some stage, we will have to start paying it back, or we will have to default as a state.

If there are any other options, please let Gordon Brown know.

How would we have reset the economy without the banks? How could any business exist without lines of credit? What sort of industry do you think the UK should move towards to replace the financial sector?