£1.2tn given to old from young

chucky

stueyhants wrote: »

Your assuming there was the same demand for owner occupation in the 70s and now and it was just that they couldn't afford it .. is this true ?

Is it not the case that demand for OO has being growing due to other more recent issues such as Pension provision and property !!!!!! tv (although I'd amit that is probably too late to have had much of an impact on the underlying trend)

so it's not the baby boomers fault but the current generation who are the ones behind the demand for property.

abaxas

chucky wrote: »

lol it's dropped from 70.2% to 69.8%

you're not very good at this but well done for trying Abacus :T

I was just adding to your info.

I cant find anything for 2009 though.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

are you avoiding the qeustion?

you can't seem to get away from the fact that if it was so easy to buy in the 1970s why there weren't more people owning property.

nearly 50% less people owned their own property in the 1970s than they do today.
it couldn't have been that easy otherwise owner occupancy levels would have been much, much higher.

As we have already been over, credit is a huge part of ownership, and credit wasn't as easy.

Plus council houses were still very much widely available back then.

Relying on a graph and the ownership graph just misses the bigger picture.

This thread is just going wrong in circles.

Harry_Powell

mbga9pgf wrote: »

So, lets get this right, without an ever expanding supply of credit, we cant survive as a nation? Is that what you are saying? because if it is, your plan will ultimately fail. At what stage do we say, we are paying too much interest, we need to stop? At the stage our net outgoings are absorbed completely by credit?

I didn't say anything like what you've said above. I simply said that no business can survive without credit, "ever expanding" was never mentioned and all the rest of this paragraph is rhetoric against personal debt, not corporate debt. It's all about cash-flow. Many companies, especially manufacturing and construction will not receive payment until a project is complete, how will they finance themselves (wages, development costs, materials, etc. etc.) without using credit lines?

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Of course we couldnt survive without the banking system. I think splitting the banks off into a glass-stegall style model then failing the assets of those banks involved in dodgy dealings would have been enough. Not all banking needs to go, only the stuff based on unsustainable investment. That includes ever growing mortgage lending. At some stage, we will simply destroy demand alltogether with the net payments we make to the banking system, much of the profit now going abroad to foreign banks.

I agree, but it's easy to be wise after the event. Had you been advocating tighter banking legislation prior to the credit crunch, I would be very impressed. How do you decide what is an unsustainable investment?

mbga9pgf wrote: »

As to what industry, the Managerial service sector, at a top level is something we are exceptionally strong at. Global advanced civil and mechanical engineering projects, such as oil refinement, nuclear and big plant setup again is something we are exceptionally good out. Pharmaceuticals, the growing trade in renewable energy sources (biofuels, biomass, wind, solar, tidal) are all subject to underinvestment, yet could yeild big rewards. Software - particularly in defence, is an exceptionally strong indusry, be it digital signal processing, encryption or anologue to digital systems, we have some of the globes best mind.

We had engineering as a major industry back in the 1970s but it all collapsed due to mismanagement, unions and cheap overseas labour. Our Engineering and manufacturing output is now restricted to expensive niche products that barely sustain their current employment levels. It's the same with renewables (wind, wave, solar), it's cheaper to construct these overseas, so while we could (and do) design these in the UK, they will always be manufactured elsewhere. The Defence industry is a large employer but requires us to sell arms to some dubious countries and is pretty much at full capacity.

Software & I.T. has been moving overseas for years, where there are thousands of bright and intelligent science graduates each year in india, indonesia, China, etc. and an increasingly experienced (and large and cheap) workforce.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As we have already been over, credit is a huge part of ownership, and credit wasn't as easy.

Plus council houses were still very much widely available back then.

Relying on a graph and the ownership graph just misses the bigger picture.

This thread is just going wrong in circles.

that is correct so it would mean that the availability of credit has allowed for more people to own their own homes. that's what the 'bears' and also the more vocal socialists on this forum wanted right?

or should it be that people that can afford property should be able to own then?

it's one of the two Graham - i await your answer...

stueyhants

chucky wrote: »

so it's not the baby boomers fault but the current generation who are the ones behind the demand for property.

I'm arguing there wasn't the same level of desire in the 70's as there is now for OO. People had adequate social housing so didn't always need to own privately. Therefore the % was lower through choice as much as it was harder to afford OO.

The current generation don't have the choice of social housing and so get forced in OO or private renting.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As we have already been over, credit is a huge part of ownership, and credit wasn't as easy.

Plus council houses were still very much widely available back then.

Relying on a graph and the ownership graph just misses the bigger picture.

This thread is just going wrong in circles.

To me the graph clearly shows that home ownership shot up in 1981 to the loss of social housing. Basically right to buy, surprised people are not blaming your average 40 year old for it now.:)

Personally the problem house prices are so high is a lack of social housing and an increasing population, lack of building to keep up with population growth.

I think the basic jist of the thread is that any one who has lived and has owned is the cause of HPI and have taken money from the young.
But has that ever been any different? money just goes round in an ever increasing circle the circle just keeps getting bigger.

Perhaps we have gone from nature being survival of the fittest to now being survival of the richest. It is not nice but money is the new measure, make of that what you will but it seems to ring fairly true, ask any footballer.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

that is correct so it would mean that the availability of credit has allowed for more people to own their own homes. that's what the 'bears' and also the more vocal socialists on this forum wanted right?

or should it be that people that can afford property should be able to own then?

it's one of the two Graham - i await your answer...

My answer is I'm not going to be boxed into a question with only 2 answers.

The bears want sensible house prices. Sensible credit.

thescouselander

Yeah its was an interesting programme that. I particularly liked the baby boomers near the end that said they were spending their children's inheritance on an around the world trip. They didn't seen to realise that they would probably need that money to support them in their nursing home as they got older - I cant see the younger generation being in a position to support them as the oldies have already sucked everyone dry.

chucky

stueyhants wrote: »

I'm arguing there wasn't the same level of desire in the 70's as there is now for OO. People had adequate social housing so didn't always need to own privately. Therefore the % was lower through choice as much as it was harder to afford OO.

The current generation don't have the choice of social housing and so get forced in OO or private renting.

i agree but i reckon the social housing aspect is a factor but not the driving one.

the demand and the changing culture is what has driven the market.