So what's the solution?

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, can see there is no point in continuing this discussion with you as you are being deliberately obtuse.

the irony, you're going down that route - oh dear. brilliant pmsl

let me say it again to you Devon - it's not my fault that you're slow...

you obviously didn't like the answer. never mind

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's quite clear what is being said here.

Let's try another anology, even though one has already been given.

200 people own cars in a town in 1990. Of those 200 people 10 have loans.

In 2010, 600 people own cars. Out of those 600, 500 have loans.

.

Quite a good analogy, it means different things to different folks, to me it means that in 1990 if you could affford a car at all it was probably an old banger, whereas in 2010 a lot more people can afford to buy a new car with a loan of course.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

leitmotif wrote: »

, higher levels of indebtedness surely result in lower general happiness

Assertion without foundation.

Higher than what? Lower happiness, why?

If I were to have rented a house in Aberdeen instead of buying in 2007, I would now be around £50,000 worse off than I am today, my disposable income would be lower, and my costs to buy now far greater. Even though the size of the debt required to buy then and now would be almost exactly the same.

I would be less happy, more stressed, and less well off without debt than with it.

Why is this better?

Also, when I bought a house in 1990, my percentage of income required to service the debt was far higher than it is today, even though the house price, and therefore debt, was far lower then than today.

In fact, it was pretty miserable to take on a much lower debt 20 years ago, with far lower living standards being the result, and much more stressful than taking on a far higher debt today.

kabayiri

People, please answer the OP's question

Solution?

Here it is !
http://www.psfk.com/2010/06/portable-home-is-barely-wider-than-a-door.html

Imagine how many of these could be built on those unused bits of grass spaces in London. All of a sudden, loads more affordable houses for key workers.

Just be careful how you arrange them, in case some drunken revellers indulge in a spot of house dominoes.

vivatifosi

kabayiri wrote: »

Here it is !
http://www.psfk.com/2010/06/portable-home-is-barely-wider-than-a-door.html

Brilliant! Solves the housing problem and the obesity problem in one go :rotfl:.

kabayiri

vivatifosi wrote: »

Brilliant! Solves the housing problem and the obesity problem in one go :rotfl:.

Now we are getting somewhere.

We shouldn't try building more desirable homes in places like London.

If you build houses which are undesirable and lack style by design no self respecting city slicker will want to be seen in one. These houses will therefore remain cheap for the all important 'key workers'.

The only downside I see is if people stop needing keys. All of a sudden these people won't be able to afford anything.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Let's try another anology, even though one has already been given.

200 people own cars in a town in 1990. Of those 200 people 10 have loans.

In 2010, 600 people own cars. Out of those 600, 500 have loans.

So, what does this tell you? Doe's it instantly tell you cars are more affordable?

No, it tells you that more cars are probably made in 2010 than in 1990.

People took out mortgages in the 90's so I dont really see the anology as relelvent.

Most people purchased cars with credit in the past, so the anology is just trying to warp the fact people have purchased houses with credit in the past and will continue to do so.

What is fairly obvious in the ownership stats are more people can buy when more houses are built (1961- 1981).

Glad to see the 71% ownership not being true was a throw away point though:)

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

No, it tells you that more cars are probably made in 2010 than in 1990.

I think at this point we can conclude it's impossible to discuss any further.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think at this point we can conclude at this point it's impossible to discuss any further.

I thought that 200 VS 600 would obviously mean that there was increased supply and all that.

The conclusion is to judge things about houses, use facts about houses.

Not analogies about cars

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

What is fairly obvious in the ownership stats are more people can buy when more houses are built (1961- 1981).

Glad to see the 71% ownership not being true was a throw away point though:)

is that bloke from Devon still trying to argue that less people could buy in 2005 than in the 1980s.... oh dear...