Rents Rising due to supply shortage....

Gorgeous_George

abaxas wrote: »

Tesco shelf stacker puts tin on beans on shelf. Punter takes beans off shelf, then goes to till and pays for it.

Supply/demand ratio changes.

Let's assume Tesco have 100 tins of beans and 100 people wanting a tin of beans. Supply/demand ratio = 100:100 or 1:1.

Tesco sell a tin of beans. One customer is satisfied. Tesco have 99 tins of beans and there are 99 remaining customers hoping to buy a tin. Supply/demand ratio is 99:99 or 1:1.

Now if you got clubcard points when you bought an house...

I'll get my coat.

GG

System

DaddyBear wrote: »

Good news, the cost of food/petrol/gas rose 1.2% this month? I don't think so.

I keep seeing this analogy and assumed I was missing some kind of joke but I'm starting to think people actually think it's valid.

Blacklight

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I keep seeing this analogy and assumed I was missing some kind of joke but I'm starting to think people actually think it's valid.

I see that a lot too. One can only assume that the doom mongers have run out of tangible arguments for a catastrophic collapse of society in order to satisfy their greed for a bargain without putting in any real effort.

It used to be lack of credit, no first time buyers, rising interest rates, unemployment or wages not keeping pace. All of which are distinctly crimson and fish shaped in my opinion.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I keep seeing this analogy and assumed I was missing some kind of joke but I'm starting to think people actually think it's valid.

Weird, isn't it?

Housing is an investment class asset, just like any other. Sure, it also has utility value, as do classic cars, precious metals, fine wine, art, etc.

Yet they seem to see housing as merely a consumable item, like a loaf of bread or a tin of beans.

A complete lack of ability to differentiate betweem consumable goods and investment class assets takes a special kind of warped thinking.;)

They may as well go onto the savings and investment boards celebrating stock market falls, or the price of gold crashing, or the value of pensions and savings being destroyed. They'd be treated with the same derision they are now, but at least they'd be annoying new people.:rotfl:

Spartacus_Mills

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What sort of article starts with "the good news is" with nothing before it, and no reference to bad news.

One from Hamish, of course :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

I keep seeing this analogy and assumed I was missing some kind of joke but I'm starting to think people actually think it's valid.

It is valid.

Most of the bulls on here are invested in houses outside the remit of a home. So they see houses as an asset. Asset up = good. What's that got to do with living costs...

Other people, bears included, and most of the population who are neither bull or bear, see houses as homes. Part of the costs of living.

I have a few living costs per month....
- My house
- My car
- Council Tax
- Phones / Broadband / Electric etc
- Food

Etc etc etc

I don't think "oh nooooooo....my house is not a living cost, it's an investment".

It's something I need to live. It provides shelter, warmth as it's primary function. I would not survive without it.

Therefore, it is a cost of living. As is food prices going up.

You (and the other bulls) wouldn't get that cus they are up to their necks in it, relying on HPI to save them from basic bankrupcy should the brown stuff hit the fan again.

To expand on the scenario of a home as an investment. Does that classify the fuel I put in my car to go to work an "investment"? Therefore when fuel goes up I should rejoice?

I think we need to accept the difference. Homes are seen as an asset to some. Homes are a home to most.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You (and the other bulls) wouldn't get that cus they are up to their necks in it, relying on HPI to save them from basic bankrupcy should the brown stuff hit the fan again.

apart from most of it bein a decent post you put this bit in which made me smile out loud!!

you can actually be funny in a Forest Gumpish kind of way but you do have a very large chip that makes you feel seem very inadequate on your shoulder.

keep it up :wall::wall:

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It is valid.

Most of the bulls on here are invested in houses outside the remit of a home. So they see houses as an asset. Asset up = good. What's that got to do with living costs...

Other people, bears included, and most of the population who are neither bull or bear, see houses as homes. Part of the costs of living.

I have a few living costs per month....
- My house
- My car
- Council Tax
- Phones / Broadband / Electric etc
- Food

Etc etc etc

I don't think "oh nooooooo....my house is not a living cost, it's an investment".

It's something I need to live. It provides shelter, warmth as it's primary function. I would not survive without it.

Therefore, it is a cost of living. As is food prices going up.

You (and the other bulls) wouldn't get that cus they are up to their necks in it, relying on HPI to save them from basic bankrupcy should the brown stuff hit the fan again.

To expand on the scenario of a home as an investment. Does that classify the fuel I put in my car to go to work an "investment"? Therefore when fuel goes up I should rejoice?

I think we need to accept the difference. Homes are seen as an asset to some. Homes are a home to most.

Not a bad post from you Graham, however you need to understand the difference between investment and expenditure.

The petrol you put in your car is an expenditure.
you need to spend it to get to work to earn more money than you spend.
You cannot however (in practical terms) re-sell it.

If you can sell it on it's an investment.
If it will save you money in the long term i.e. not paying rent into retirement, then it is also an investment.

Why do people buy homes at all. The do so as an investment, even when viewed as a home. They are investing in their future and consolodating fixed costs now as opposed to inflated prices in the future.

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Not a bad post from you Graham, however you need to understand the difference between investment and expenditure.

The petrol you put in your car is an expenditure.
you need to spend it to get to work to earn more money than you spend.
You cannot however (in practical terms) re-sell it.

If you can sell it on it's an investment.
If it will save you money in the long term i.e. not paying rent into retirement, then it is also an investment.

Why do people buy homes at all. The do so as an investment, even when viewed as a home. They are investing in their future and consolodating fixed costs now as opposed to inflated prices in the future.

Thanks ISTL.

Depends how I see it I guess. The fuel going in to my car enables me to go to work, to earn money. I am spending money to earn money. That is an investment.

Without that "spend" on fuel, I would not be able to bring more money in.

I may not be able to sell the fuel no, but it does enable me to make money. The same as the investment in a house does.

Going a bit off topic I guess, but fuel going up means I am spending more, to earn the same. That, I don't rejoice at. The same as spending more to get the same in terms of housing, I don't rejoice at.

System

Dear oh dear.

People buy fuel all the time, if the price goes up you have to pay more.

If you had £150,000 worth of fuel in a stockpile somewhere then you'd have saved a lot of money if the price increases, and if you were to sell it you'd have more money than you started with.