A Bull's Perspective

nearlynew

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You must lend me that time machine one day....

We won't know that until the April data releases at the earliest.

Like I give a f*ck about official figures.

macaque_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.
I'd have no issues with that. But I doubt they can pull it off. The pressure of the next boom is building by the day, and unless we build millions more houses very quickly it's inevitable.

Hamish, your position seems to be shifting. Until recently, you have cheered every news item on mass immigration and the effect this will have on house price inflation. You now seem to be a convert to more house building. We will not need more houses if we sort out the underlying problems:

1. We need a stable population. The UK is now the most overcrowded country in Europe. The projections for further population growth are based on immigration. How does more overcrowding make the UK a better place? Why do we need more immigration when we have 9 million people of working age 'eonomically inactive'? If these people will go back to work, there will be no need for net inward migration or more houses.

2. Housing has morphed from a necessity to a commodity. This encourages people to buy/hold bigger homes than they need. Single people and couples without children instinctively buy 4 and 5 bed houses for the investment value. For as long as there are incentives for people to act like this, there will never be enough houses (if GP's hoarded pencillin, there would never be enough penecillin)

3. Houses enjoy special tax concessions. This, combined with artificially low interest rates encourages to hoard empty homes.

AD9898_2

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes.

An adjustment in real terms would be of no real harm to the economy or the majority, whilst still helping affordability for the young.

I'd have no issues with that. But I doubt they can pull it off. The pressure of the next boom is building by the day, and unless we build millions more houses very quickly it's inevitable.

Where is the money ? Without it it makes no difference to how much somebody may or may not want something, without the money no one can buy. £200 billion is missing from the market to hold prices steady and bring transactions up to near normal levels.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

macaque wrote: »

Hamish, your position seems to be shifting. Until recently, you have cheered every news item on mass immigration and the effect this will have on house price inflation. You now seem to be a convert to more house building.

No shift at all.

I note immigration is significant, and will remain so. But it's not the only factor contributing to population growth, nor indeed for the increase in household formation.

An increased birthrate, increased life expectancy, increase in single person households, all contribute as much to population growth and/or household formation growth as immigration.

Even without the increase from net migration, our population would be growing at the rate of 200,000 people a year.

We will not need more houses if we sort out the underlying problems:

We need more houses either way. And these are not problems.

1. We need a stable population.

False.

We need a growing population for the next few decades whilst we shift the social care burden down through the generations or we end up like Japan, with 200% plus government debt to GDP ratios.

The UK is now the most overcrowded country in Europe.

False.

The UK is ranked tenth by population density of states in Europe, behind Holland and Belgium, and only slightly ahead of Germany.

The highest population density in Europe is Monaco, at 16,000 people per square kilometre. The lowest is Greenland, at less than 1 person per square kilometre. Holland has 393, Belgium 337, the UK only 244, and Germany 233.

The projections for further population growth are based on immigration.

False.

Only around 50% of population growth is from net migration. The rest is from natural increase.

How does more overcrowding make the UK a better place?

As we're clearly not overcrowded, it's a pointless question to answer.

Why do we need more immigration when we have 9 million people of working age 'eonomically inactive'? If these people will go back to work, there will be no need for net inward migration or more houses.

From memory, most of these people are housewives and students.... Do you propose forced labour?

2. Housing has morphed from a necessity to a commodity. This encourages people to buy/hold bigger homes than they need. Single people and couples without children instinctively buy 4 and 5 bed houses for the investment value. For as long as there are incentives for people to act like this, there will never be enough houses (if GP's hoarded pencillin, there would never be enough penecillin)

So whats the solution, forced redistribution of houses by need instead of a free market economy? All sounds a bit Stalinist to me......

A bedroom tax? Like the window tax of old..... That didn't work very well the first time around.

3. Houses enjoy special tax concessions. This, combined with artificially low interest rates encourages to hoard empty homes.

Interest rates are not artificially low..... They're where they need to be to undo the damage to the wider economy from your beloved crash.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

AD9898 wrote: »

Where is the money ? Without it it makes no difference to how much somebody may or may not want something, without the money no one can buy. £200 billion is missing from the market to hold prices steady and bring transactions up to near normal levels.

Mortgage restrictions can never prevent HPI, they can only delay it.

ILW

An increased tax on second homes may help.

FATBALLZ

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We need a growing population for the next few decades whilst we shift the social care burden down through the generations or we end up like Japan, with 200% plus government debt to GDP ratios.

Or to rephrase that, until you've bit the dust and finished your comfortable retirement.

Given that the retiring generations are the ones who've massively benefitted from the boom in prices, it baffles me somewhat that you think the burden of social care needs to be passed on to their kids - looks very much like they are in a position to pay for it themselves much more than their kids are.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Wishing for a crash to resolve affordability issues for the young is like wishing for a 3rd degree facial burns to cure teenage acme.....

Yesterday I called you fruitloop.

Today I'm upgrading that to a little bit weird, you know, the scary type weird.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Mortgage restrictions can never prevent HPI, they can only delay it.

yep, like by 10 years or something. i think that would be plenty long enough for most people.

FATBALLZ

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Mortgage restrictions can never prevent HPI, they can only delay it.

I suppose that would be in the same sense that retroviral drugs can't prevent death from AIDS, they can only delay it. Maybe we should stop giving them out, they're obviously a bad thing.