Rents rising again....

chewmylegoff

Percy1983 wrote: »

My business doesn't involve squeezing every last penny out of families based on something they need to feed my own greed.

My business offers a cheap service and an excellent product to which they won't be left homeless if they don't buy.

Ethical business is for me.

There's nothing particularly unethical about profit maximisation as long as the landlord fulfils his obligations under the tenancy agreement properly.

For the same reason that you're not going to put a cash deposit in an account that pays 2% when there is another that pays 3%, you're not going to charge below market rate as a landlord and receive a substandard return on your capital invested.

It's not unethical to charge market rate rent. If you attempt to set the rent above market rate the tenant can leave, or indeed never rent the property in the first place.

chewmylegoff

DpchMd wrote: »

He's a stubborn sod, our Graham. I've lost count how many times I've seen Hamish et al correct Graham on some basic economic principle, yet he sticks around and continues to post rubbish. I kinda respect that.

It's not the predictions that wind people up, its the fact that he has a billion posts yet still has a poorer understanding of the economy than my neighbour's goldfish.

Anyway, it's clear that he's not gonna change and I'm sure he'll be doing the same thing for the next decade, so I wholeheartedly promise to be nicer from now on.

Hanging around stubbornly posting rubbish is what everyone on this forum does as a general rule, it's not like GD is any different from hamish, or indeed any other person here in that regard.

DpchMd

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Hanging around stubbornly posting rubbish is what everyone on this forum does as a general rule, it's not like GD is any different from hamish, or indeed any other person here in that regard.

I disagree, but I promised I would be nice, so I am not going to explain why GD is different.

JonnyBravo

Percy1983 wrote: »

I plan to move so I need to sell my house at market value to then buy another at market value.

Ah yes I thought you'd say that.
Now of course you could sell below market rate and simply take a larger mortgage next time. If that meant you could only buy something similar so be it.
ie You're asking me to fund "the market" by charging under market rates. I'm asking you to also "fund the market" by passing over some of your built up equity.
Of course, you see that as entirely different.
I don't.


You obtuse lack of understanding here simply exposes either;
a) a very real lack of understanding of what is a very basic concept
or
b) a purposeful pretence of not understanding

I realise that I and the others who have attempted to explain it to you, (some of whom aren't landlords and aren't known for winding up the "BTL=Bad" crowd), aren't going to get through to you so I'll stick to talking about repayment of borrowed money with you from now on.
I know you know lots about that.

Graham_Devon

DpchMd wrote: »

He's a stubborn sod, our Graham. I've lost count how many times I've seen Hamish et al correct Graham on some basic economic principle, yet he sticks around and continues to post rubbish. I kinda respect that.

It's not the predictions that wind people up, its the fact that he has a billion posts yet still has a poorer understanding of the economy than my neighbour's goldfish.

Anyway, it's clear that he's not gonna change and I'm sure he'll be doing the same thing for the next decade, so I wholeheartedly promise to be nicer from now on.

There is a key difference between not understanding and having a differing viewpoint.

Your first sentence says a lot, you use the word stubborn to describe me, and then go on to say I don't understand. All this states is that I won't agree with your viewpoint, and they way you understand things.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't understand, it means I have an alternative view. (Though there are lots of things i don't understand, I generally don't get involved) You, and others cannot, (not for lack of trying) bring me round to your point of view, which you believe is correct, therefore, I'm described as stubborn and not being able to understand.

If anyone actually understood economics. If there was a right way and a wrong way. If the crisis could only play out in one way....then yes, you could be right.

But that's not how it works. You need to change your view as things unfold. You need to work with the factors politics can throw at a problem, and change your view (if needbe) based on the new policy that didn't previously exist.

A lot of what I was wrong about, and I'll openly admit I was wrong about, was changed dramatically by the use of QE. I believed the FTSE would hit 2,500. But that was at a time before QE. QE changed things dramtically. Would the FTSE have hit 2,500 if QE wasn't pumped into the economy? We'll never know.

On a purely academic point, I was wrong, the FTSE didn't hit 2500 (might do yet). Homing in on that doesn't mean I don't understand. You won't find me saying that now, as things have changed, and as soon as we all knew about the change, I dropped my thoughts.

What it does mean, on the contrary is that I do understand, possibly more than some give credit for. I understand that you need to change yoru view based on whats happening around you. Something many could make much use of on here.

Instead of relying solely on which predictions or thoughts didn't happen, perhaps a more mature way of looking at things is to look at what stopped it from happening, and realise we could never have known those things at the time.

Hindsight is a winderful thing. And while it can be used as constant ammo, doing that actually waters down the point you are trying to make about lack of understanding. Why? Because you have to understand how hindsight works, and how you can use it.

DpchMd

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is a key difference between not understanding and having a differing viewpoint.

Your first sentence says a lot, you use the word stubborn to describe me, and then go on to say I don't understand. All this states is that I won't agree with your viewpoint, and they way you understand things.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't understand, it means I have an alternative view. (Though there are lots of things i don't understand, I generally don't get involved) You, and others cannot, (not for lack of trying) bring me round to your point of view, which you believe is correct, therefore, I'm described as stubborn and not being able to understand.

If anyone actually understood economics. If there was a right way and a wrong way. If the crisis could only play out in one way....then yes, you could be right.

But that's not how it works. You need to change your view as things unfold. You need to work with the factors politics can throw at a problem, and change your view (if needbe) based on the new policy that didn't previously exist.

A lot of what I was wrong about, and I'll openly admit I was wrong about, was changed dramatically by the use of QE. I believed the FTSE would hit 2,500. But that was at a time before QE. QE changed things dramtically. Would the FTSE have hit 2,500 if QE wasn't pumped into the economy? We'll never know.

On a purely academic point, I was wrong, the FTSE didn't hit 2500 (might do yet). Homing in on that doesn't mean I don't understand. You won't find me saying that now, as things have changed, and as soon as we all knew about the change, I dropped my thoughts.

What it does mean, on the contrary is that I do understand, possibly more than some give credit for. I understand that you need to change yoru view based on whats happening around you. Something many could make much use of on here.

Instead of relying solely on which predictions or thoughts didn't happen, perhaps a more mature way of looking at things is to look at what stopped it from happening, and realise we could never have known those things at the time.

Hindsight is a winderful thing. And while it can be used as constant ammo, doing that actually waters down the point you are trying to make about lack of understanding. Why? Because you have to understand how hindsight works, and how you can use it.

Sorry Graham but I'm not talking about predictions or opinions. You genuinely fail to grasp some of the most simple economic concepts. If you posted with an exloratory rather than factual tone then everyone would let it slide, but you contually post embarrassingly invalid posts as a statement of fact.

I'm not gonna say any more on this matter, and I promise to bite my tongue in future.

Graham_Devon

DpchMd wrote: »

Sorry Graham but I'm not talking about predictions or opinions. You genuinely fail to grasp some of the most simple economic concepts. If you posted with an exloratory rather than factual tone then everyone would let it slide, but you contually post embarrassingly invalid posts as a statement of fact.

I'm not gonna say any more on this matter, and I promise to bite my tongue in future.

I fail to see what your problem actually is in all honesty. You obviously have one, have obviously had to create new usernames to come back with and start again.

It's a very wishy washy way of having a go, but fails totally on the very fact you have to hide the original identity. Therefore, apologies, but I won't be taking it to heart.

chucky

DpchMd wrote: »

Sorry Graham but I'm not talking about predictions or opinions. You genuinely fail to grasp some of the most simple economic concepts. If you posted with an exloratory rather than factual tone then everyone would let it slide, but you contually post embarrassingly invalid posts as a statement of fact.

I'm not gonna say any more on this matter, and I promise to bite my tongue in future.

You'll be accused of being abusive and being bully by the mighty in their ivory towers next.

Ignore it, his type don't have a clue and never will.

ruggedtoast

DpchMd wrote: »

Sorry Graham but I'm not talking about predictions or opinions. You genuinely fail to grasp some of the most simple economic concepts. If you posted with an exloratory rather than factual tone then everyone would let it slide, but you contually post embarrassingly invalid posts as a statement of fact.

I'm not gonna say any more on this matter, and I promise to bite my tongue in future.

Mean.

Actually, just, beastly.

JonnyBravo

Percy, you'll be pleased to hear my new tenants are now in.... and at the same rent as the last tenants!