Amazingly Niave Theory

the.ciscokid

chucky wrote: »

who's obtuse??? me???

it's you who doesn't know how to use Google or even understand demand where it is the desire of someone to pay for something combined with the ability to pay and also the willingness to pay at a point in time.

it really is quite simple.

Yes you, and you are doing it again.

I am asking you a question, call it a form of conversation if you will. If you were speaking face to face with someone, is this how you would converse?

You are barking up the wrong tree anyway, with your insults and insinuations. Care to have a crack at replying in a slightly less rude manner?

des_cartes

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Yes you, and you are doing it again.

I am asking you a question, call it a form of conversation if you will. If you were speaking face to face with someone, is this how you would converse?

You are barking up the wrong tree anyway, with your insults and insinuations. Care to have a crack at replying in a slightly less rude manner?

The op is clearly incapable of understanding that the desire to own something (a house) has to be matched with the ability (availability of finance) to achieve the desire. As lenders continue to reduce the amount of lending for house purchase both for buyers and btl until prices have returned to normal levels then prices cannot rise. Until he/she can reconcile his/her limitations in this respect don't expect too much in the way of reasoned argument around the future path of house prices.

Linton

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Ah, so turning places into slums will make houses more profitable, I see thats clear now, thanks. This utopian future sounds like the sort of place that is going to have a great economy, and thus more income for people to blow on smaller and smaller dwellings.

Higher density doesnt necessarily mean slums - look at the very expensive and very prestigous small flats in parts of London.

The problem is that you seem to be arguing on the basis of what you see to be right and wrong. Sorry, but that's irrelevent.

If you have a free market, restricted supply, and people who are prepared to spend all they can afford on housing, prices will be unaffordable to most potential ftbers. To argue against this is like arguing against the laws of gravity because they can make you fall over and hurt yourself.

IMHO the only likely salvation is more housing - this can only be on greenfield sites and/or by increasing density on existing sites.

Or of course you could dispense with a free market and have housing allocated by government, or perhaps in these days of localism committees of local worthies.

chucky

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Yes you, and you are doing it again.

I am asking you a question, call it a form of conversation if you will. If you were speaking face to face with someone, is this how you would converse?

if some one replies to me in the manner you did i treat them like the idiot that they are

if you don't like it you'll have to get over it all by yourself...
maybe if you replied in a more pleasant manner (like you did below) you wouldn't be treated as the blunt instrument that you are...

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Stop being obtuse

the.ciscokid wrote: »

You should be a spin doctor.

the.ciscokid wrote: »

Care to have a crack at replying in a slightly less rude manner?

i'll pass on trying to explain it to you [again]... life is way too short!!

happy new year!!

des_cartes

chucky wrote: »

if some one replies to me in the manner you did i treat them like the idiot that they are

if you don't like it you'll have to get over it all by yourself...
maybe if you replied in a more pleasant manner (like you did below) you wouldn't be treated as the blunt instrument that you are...




i'll pass on trying to explain it to you [again]... life is way too short!!

happy new year!!

Once again you demonstrate a total inability to engage in grown up debate.:(

des_cartes

Linton wrote: »

If you have a free market, restricted supply, and people who are prepared to spend all they can afford on housing.

And the amount they can afford to spend on housing continues to fall and will continue to fall as taxes rise, incomes fall and interest rates rise over the next 2-3 years and as lenders continue to lend less than in the years when prices were rising. In other words it is the amount of money people can (either through affordability or availability of finance) spend on a house either as a home to live in or as a btl that will determine future house prices not whether houses are in short supply in relation to the number of people needing to buy or rent one.

Linton

des_cartes wrote: »

And the amount they can afford to spend on housing continues to fall and will continue to fall as taxes rise, incomes fall and interest rates rise over the next 2-3 years and as lenders continue to lend less than in the years when prices were rising. In other words it is the amount of money people can (either through affordability or availability of finance) spend on a house either as a home to live in or as a btl that will determine future house prices not whether houses are in short supply in relation to the number of people needing to buy or rent one.

Not quite -both are equally important.

The shortage means that houses will be nearly unaffordable - ie the number of people who will be able to afford a house will match the number of houses available. This latter number is determined by the net rate of house build (currently very low, possibly negative) and demographics.

So the fewer houses that are available the higher the price will have to be to keep the numbers equal, given a fixed economy.

The overall economy will determine at what price there are sufficient available buyers. Given a fixed stock of available houses higher taxes and interest will lower the cost of houses.

Now we have decreasing supply of houses which will tend to increase prices and increasing economic pressures on potential buyers which will tend to decrease prices.

Net result - I dont know, could go either way, but not by much I think.

drc

We don't own and we are nearing our 40s. Not sure if we will buy in the future now. Don't want to have a huge millstone around our necks if the UK goes tits up and we want to leave. Think we might actually rent for a bit longer and then emigrate to my husband's country in a few years.

des_cartes

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

As population increases, and we fail to build enough houses, then the only possible outcome is more people per house.

More people per house = more income per house. Whether that income is through wages or benefits is of no relevance, on average, 3 people living in a house will result in a higher household income than 1 person living in a house.

Supporting higher rents, and thus higher return on investment, and ultimately attracting more capital seeking a return.

Rents have been soaring all year, and are now at record high levels. The process is already happening. You just refuse to see it.

And how many people crammed into crummy UK housing do you think it will take before significant numbers say b0ll0x to this, i'm off?

abaxas

des_cartes wrote: »

And how many people crammed into crummy UK housing do you think it will take before significant numbers say b0ll0x to this, i'm off?

Or b0ll0x I'm staying, but someone else can pay for me.