So what's the solution?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

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

As you very much know, but wish tobe extremely difficult, for what reason I don't know, as it just ruins all attempts at discussion, it was about the loans on cars. Not the amount of cars.

I've given up though, as the other poster has. It's just pointless. Simply closing your mind and telling others they are talking nonsense isn't very useful on a discussion board.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As you very much know, but wish tobe extremely difficult, for what reason I don't know, as it just ruins all attempts at discussion, it was about the loans on cars. Not the amount of cars.

I've given up though, as the other poster has. It's just pointless. Simply closing your mind and telling others they are talking nonsense isn't very useful on a discussion board.

I am not being difficult your example bears nothing in common with the facts?
That is, people purchased with mortgages in the 60's 70's 80's 90's 00's.
So your car credit point proves/shows me nothing.

In fact the ownership stats point out to me more people would own outright now than in 1960.

So if you want to make it look like now you should reverse the amount of credit, fewer people now would owe money on houses than in the 1960's etc.

People may pay more for houses, but far more own outright now than 40-50 years ago. Mortgages tending only to be 25 years in length thell us that.

So not entirely sure where these analogies are going? why not do one based on housing stats than hypothetical car sales?

Making stuff up or disputing facts based on a myth that home owners don't own until they have paid in full for their house are not very useful to discussion IMHO.

So the facts, for you and the other poster to get one over on me.
Did more people own outright in 1960 (used as the example of things being affordable and little debt) or in 2005 (when used as the example of unaffordabililty and high debt).
For the anologies to hold any weigh less people should own outright when prices are unaffordable in your eyes.

nickmason

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

I love the fact the "house" has been dressed with a watering can.