What price is worth paying for cheaper housing.....

JonnyBravo

DaddyBear wrote: »

JK, I'm not suggesting that the Bulls do anything about it. It just frustrates me that the Bulls refuse to admit that massive HPI is bad for society and that HPI must be encouraged at all costs.

An honest question. I suspect I know the answer but it is actually worth thinking about.


Do you send as much effort trying to convince those in power, in a position to do something about it, (eg writing to your MP etc), as trying to convince some "bulls" about it?

DaddyBear

JonnyBravo wrote: »

An honest question. I suspect I know the answer but it is actually worth thinking about.


Do you send as much effort trying to convince those in power, in a position to do something about it, (eg writing to your MP etc), as trying to convince some "bulls" about it?

I wouldn't call 1 post per day average as "Effort", just a release.

No point writing to my MP, We know that nearly all of our glorious MP's have multiple houses and thus a VI in HPI. Look at Nulab's economic policy, continuing HPI is higher on the agenda than private sector investment, manufacturing and currency protection.

JonnyBravo

DaddyBear wrote: »

I wouldn't call 1 post per day average as "Effort", just a release.

You strike me a someone who has written a lot of posts on varying forums about this subject matter though. I'm sure it all adds up.

DaddyBear wrote: »

No point writing to my MP, We know that nearly all of our glorious MP's have multiple houses and thus a VI in HPI. Look at Nulab's economic policy, continuing HPI is higher on the agenda than private sector investment, manufacturing and currency protection.

Agreed it probably is pointless but a good deal less pointless (apart from the "release" you speak of) than moaning to a load of "bulls" who you have already pointed out are intransigent about their point of view.
In fact, are you not guilty of similar intransigence with your ready dismissal of my suggestion and your assumption of how pointless actually trying to influence those in power might be.


Depressing I agree, but I don't see how you differ greatly.

(By the way I admit I'm as resigned to the futility of it too, but perhaps just more accepting of it as I have a house.... that clearly speaks of me too!!!)

DaddyBear

JonnyBravo wrote: »

You strike me a someone who has written a lot of posts on varying forums about this subject matter though. I'm sure it all adds up.

Nope, very occasionally post on HPC, don't have time for any other forums.

chucky

DaddyBear wrote: »

Really? I can think of several, including our prolific Scottish friend who would crack open the bubbly if HPI was back to 25% territory.

As for quoting the 70% off group, that's just stupid. What we needed was a slow correction of about 33% and then HPI around the level of inflation.

but you expected 50% property just in 2007...

is that more or less stupid than predicting 70% property drops

DaddyBear wrote: »

Nope, very occasionally post on HPC.

that was until Bruce [STRIKE]Spanner[/STRIKE] Banner labelled you a troll because you got it all wrong on hyperinflation...

DaddyBear

chucky wrote: »

but you expected 50% property just in 2007...

is that more or less stupid than predicting 70% property drops


that was until Bruce [STRIKE]Spanner[/STRIKE] Banner labelled you a troll because you got it all wrong on hyperinflation...

Unfortunately chucky, you have me confused with someone else. I signed up on this forum before I realised that there was a prominent HPC poster with the same username. He purchased a house due to fear of hyperinflation and is now trumpeting the hyperinflation theory. Look back through my posts and you won't find a single mention of hyperinflation.

Procrastinator333

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think you fail to grasp the magnitude of the problem.

When we talk about housing shortages and population growth, we are talking about needing to house 10 million more people over the next 20 years or so.

The population growth combined with housing shortage is the big tsunami pushing house prices upwards.

The tax rises, disposable income, unemployment, etc, is like trying to hold it back with a couple of sandbags......



It's been rising all year. As have house prices. We have an extra million unemployed, and prices rose 10% in 10 months.

How many more do you think is likely? And how many more would you need to reduce prices?



Pay is still rising, even now. Pay rose by 1.6% over the last year, and that is in the worst recession since the war.

We only build 35% or so of the houses we need. Only the top earning 35% of households need to be able to afford them.



As dgl1001 noted, we need to build 10% more houses than we have just to keep pace with decreasing household density. Thats before any immigration at all.

And the ONLY debate amongst all the major parties is in keeping population from crossing 70 million, and even doing that is far from certain. 70 million is absolutely locked in already. It is a neccessity to prevent the pensions crisis from worsening



They'll rise, but not enough to make a meaningful difference. A couple of percent on consumption, and a couple of percent on income, is simply not enough to prevent HPI.

Housing is a priority, and people will pay it above all else. Other parts of the economy will suffer, for sure, as disposable income is squuezed. That is why the growth forecasts are so anemic. But people will always find a way to pay the mortgage.



Rates will be low for years. BoE says that 4.5% is the same as 10% used to be in demand destruction terms, and demand destruction is why the bank raises rates. It reduces liquidity, and controls inflation.

Merril Lynch reckons 2.5% is the new neutrality level. That is very likely to be true, and very likely that we will see rates average this over the next decade.

But 2.5% base rates is nowhere near enough to kill HPI. We averaged twice that over the last decade, and prices boomed anyway.

Plus fiscal drag is likely to restrain inflation and growth anyway, onthe back of rising taxes, we simply do not need to raise rates very far, or very fast, to control inflation.



Yes, but not enough to make any meaningful difference.

You're trying to hold back a tidal wave with a 2 inch tall barrier on the beach made of teabags. It's ridiculous to assume it will have any impact at all.

Just think about it...... In the middle of the worst recession in living memory, when the crash was reality in the mainstream media, when price falls had destroyed consumer confidence, with massive rises in unemployment, and even after cutting mortgage availability by 70%, prices rebounded and rose by 10% in 10 months.

What on earth makes you think they'll fall now that the recession is over, and things really are getting better?

Now answer me one question...... Assume for a moment that population does increase as projected. Now also assume that we don't build the millions of houses needed.

How do you propose to ration the supply, if not through price?

Blimey. That is quite a post. I ain't got much time now as footie is on. Will probably have to save a reply to this for the weekend.

Shakethedisease

Well I only logged in after Big Brother..:p

And in forcing state sponsored confiscation and redistribution of houses, you've destroyed trust in the commercial system in Britain and removed any incentive for private companies to build more housing...

...Epic Fail

Then it'll revert back to the days of 'new towns' and the state building them then. It's a certain vote winner in a few years time !!! Back to the days of state housing, because that's the only way a government will keep power if there are millions homeless or living in hopelessly overcrowded conditions.

And they WILL make it a priority.

There'll be more Baslidon's, Stevenage's, Irvine's and East Kilbrides.. because that's what the electorate will vote for. If you imagine in your wildest dreams that the UK public will take kindly to seeing homeless kids and elderly roaming the streets in winters like this one.. then I think you underestimate the UK in general, and VASTLY over-estimate the value of HPI in terms of keeping successive governments in power.

There will be no housing shortage of 'millions'.. because those MILLIONS will VOTE in accordance with who they perceive will do them the most good. That's pretty obvious, or did you neglect to take into consideration the simple fact that we live in a democracy ?

If the 'most good' is a massive state housing build/empty home policy strictly adhered to/ massive new towns etc ..all providing jobs and homes allocated in terms of need rather than, let's say, someone buying their 5th 'pension property' to rent out... well it's just common sense. I guess private commercial enterprises will be happy to bid for the contracts too provided they're cheap enough.

This country won't put up with 'millions' short of a roof over their head, babies and children going cold or dying of hypothermia, or old people dying en-masse either because their ast is up and they can't find another rental property ( don't take benefits right ? ).. It's too disgusting to contemplate.

So I'd hang fire on your dire predictions Hamish, or your certainty that house prices will only matter to the top 33% of the country.. cos when there are millions, as you state, facing the streets due to any big housing shortage, there WILL be something drastic done. The other 66% of the country will have quite a lot to say about it I dare say. Votes depend on it..and after all, that's what really matters to any party in power yes ?

it's a mistake to base what 'will happen' on current goverment policy.. future governments will have very different priorities, and at a guess, I'd put 'vote winning policies' at the top of the tree if it's a pressing concern. Homelessness is waaaay too big to ignore !

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Shakethedisease wrote: »

So I'd hang fire on your dire predictions Hamish,

Nothing dire about my predictions.

Well, not if you are a property owner already, anyway.....

or your certainty that house prices will only matter to the top 33% of the country.. cos when there are millions, as you state, facing the streets due to any big housing shortage,

This is the second time you have confused owning a house with being homeless.

Don't confuse the two issues.

Prices will only matter to the richest third, but that does not mean the bottom two thirds will be homeless.

there WILL be something drastic done.

Yes, I rather suspect there will. But I doubt very much you'll like it.

No government can afford to build 3 million houses in the next 20 years.

They couldn't find 3 Billion pounds at the moment, let alone the half a Trillion or so that it would cost.

Completely impossible.

So it'll be down to private investment, and tax breaks/incentives for private landlords.

We WILL move to more of a rented society, but it'll be private landlords, concentrating ever more wealth in the hands of a "homeowning class".

And even with that, there will still be a shortage. So other solutions will be found. Dormitories for the homeless, American style "Trailer Parks" for the low income, full of relatively affordable pre-fab houses or static caravans. That'll be the "council houses" of the future.

The other 66% of the country will have quite a lot to say about it I dare say. Votes depend on it..and after all, that's what really matters to any party in power yes ?

it's a mistake to base what 'will happen' on current goverment policy.. future governments will have very different priorities, and at a guess, I'd put 'vote winning policies' at the top of the tree if it's a pressing concern. Homelessness is waaaay too big to ignore !

A housing shortage does not mean homelessness. Just like the fact that YOU can't afford a house, doesn't mean prices have to fall.

The solution for most will involve higher density living, more people sharing houses, more people renting rooms, etc. Which of course then supports higher prices, as more earners per house allows higher rents to be charged.

The days when the council would give you a "house" will be looked back on with amusement (and envy, from some) as it is more likely you will be given an American style "trailer" at best, or a rented room more likely.

We will not let people starve, or freeze to death on the streets. But we will not be handing out nice shiny new government houses either. There is simply no way it can happen. The numbers are just too big.

stueyhants

I kind of agree with Hamish's post above about the likely direction of the housing market long term. Where I differ is I'm not looking forward to it, whereas Hamish sounds as if he will be filling his boots with btl and exploiting the situtation. Just one question for you, if growing numbers of people don't have a 'stake' in soceity how do you think that is going to affect things like anti-social behaviour, crime and joblessness. You may grow richer in said scenario but I don't think your going to like soceity.