Do you know what I'd like to see?

michaels

danothy wrote: »

An MSE '(Debate) House Prices & the Economy' Thinktank.

Can't see it working though ... I think it'd be a day to remember if an economic scenario to work through could be agreed upon, let alone a series of steps agreeably contributed by the community to form a conclusion without it dissolving into some sort of incomprehensible and argumentative mad-lib.

An interesting conceit.

At work the BBC news website does not work (only the UK govt still has ie6) so I am forced to look at the torygraph website and notice they are offering a prize for an essay on how to solve youth unemployment and was wondering if as a board we could crowdsource a winning entry and split the prize money...

danothy

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I think the problem is that there is a difference of opinion and no concise answer in order to achieve an agreement.

People have their own way of deciding where the line is drawn i.e. how quickly the defict / debt should be repaid, which leads to the dissagreement.

Some want to quick and fast hit the targets whilst others consider this could be more harmful to the economy.

I think the more achievable conclusion to this would be to do reflective listening (typing) where you acknowledge the point made by the opposite debater, before adding your alternative viewpoint.

Ultimately we all need to make our own points as "In My Humble Opinion", and not as an attempt to make a conclusive, undisputable statement.

There are many roads to choose from and the "debate" is simply on the most efficient way to get to the end destination.
Of course there are some roads which also lead in the wrong direction and you end up lost (IMHO;))

I always imagined thinktanks walking through the consequences of some national scale action rather than evaluating an economic policy holistically.

For example walking through the chain of cause and effect if the government insisted on 1.5 million new homes being built by August 2014 would be speculative by nature, but if the steps at each point were small enough and reasoned (and no-one rushed to the end to draw a conclusion) then that would be a thought experiment rather than merely an opinion.

Jegersmart

The internet may just become the saviour of humankind unless it gets controlled and regulated by those that want to control sharing of information and ideas.

The main problem is that in any debate, most people take things personally or relate the subject discussed back to themselves which leads to fear, distrust and prejudice. This leads to the debate or thought process often going nowhere - or nowhere near where it needs to.

At some point enough people will realise that we have a lot in common and we probably need that kinship to change and improve the system. The system being the one that is upheld by the current set of institutions (financial, legal, government, national, corporate etc etc).

I think this will happen over time. I do spend a bit of time debating subjects on here and elsewhere - and I think I see a slow change in consciousness - also in me - before anyone accuses me of a lofty equestrian position Most ideas and subjects are met with derision and contempt of varying degrees but this is slowly changing in my experience. Of course with the global situation as it is now and the effect it has on taxpayers around the globe, I can see the change accelerating - most people only give a sh*t when stuff gets too bad to ignore. I think the situation will get much worse, sometimes the painful lessons are the ones that tend to get attention - at least I hope so. In the meantime I will continue to spend time debating issues that I think are important, even though it does seem like a lost cause most of the time.

J

Jensha

You know guys, your discussion in this thread is very interesting. But right now I think guys like us who wants to use the internet most of the time has a bigger problem now. Because the internet is about to be regulated by all the government. And guess what, it may be taxed now or something.

Jegersmart

Jensha wrote: »

your discussion

it is not "yours", it is "ours"

J

IveSeenTheLight

danothy wrote: »

I always imagined thinktanks walking through the consequences of some national scale action rather than evaluating an economic policy holistically.

For example walking through the chain of cause and effect if the government insisted on 1.5 million new homes being built by August 2014 would be speculative by nature, but if the steps at each point were small enough and reasoned (and no-one rushed to the end to draw a conclusion) then that would be a thought experiment rather than merely an opinion.

I'm sure it could be done to an extent, however it relies on some sort of leadership / chairperson to control the discussion.

You may have to revisit the plan a number of times as the visitors to the MSE website raise new points of considerations.

Would that then impact the decisions taken.

Let's put your theory to the test

For example walking through the chain of cause and effect if the government insisted on 1.5 million new homes being built by August 2014

My first question would be is this government funded social (council) housing or is it from the private sector?

Another one would be where is the funding coming from to support this construction phase?

Also where would the properties be located around the country?

Can we determine the employment opportunities by area?

What type of properties should be constructed?

Just a few to kick off the "debate"
P.S. My thoughts are you wouldn't have the agreement on the debate in by Aug 2014, let alone finish the construction by then

Jegersmart

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm sure it could be done to an extent, however it relies on some sort of leadership / chairperson to control the discussion.

You may have to revisit the plan a number of times as the visitors to the MSE website raise new points of considerations.

Would that then impact the decisions taken.

Let's put your theory to the test


My first question would be is this government funded social (council) housing or is it from the private sector?

Another one would be where is the funding coming from to support this construction phase?

Also where would the properties be located around the country?

Can we determine the employment opportunities by area?

What type of properties should be constructed?

Just a few to kick off the "debate"
P.S. My thoughts are you wouldn't have the agreement on the debate in by Aug 2014, let alone finish the construction by then

Ultimately, these homes would need to be funded by the taxpayer. The government has no "money" as such of their own. If they are to be funded by the "private sector" then in turn this could only be done if demand for such homes exist from taxpayers and accessibility to "credit" for such demand exists. Either way, we pay imho.


With regards to location, the main factor I see is that it has to be close to centres of income (i.e. work), this would be difficult to foresee in the coming years and decades. It depends on many other factors.

Type of property? Well, in a monetary system one would build either the cheapest one can, or whatever will produce the most profit regardless of the use of resources, sustainability etc etc. -

In my view, this sort of think tank discussion is too focussed or myopic if you like. We need to address the system that we are stuck in before we try to debate specifics.

all very imho ofc.

J

danothy

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm sure it could be done to an extent, however it relies on some sort of leadership / chairperson to control the discussion.

You may have to revisit the plan a number of times as the visitors to the MSE website raise new points of considerations.

Would that then impact the decisions taken.

Let's put your theory to the test


My first question would be is this government funded social (council) housing or is it from the private sector?

Another one would be where is the funding coming from to support this construction phase?

Also where would the properties be located around the country?

Can we determine the employment opportunities by area?

What type of properties should be constructed?

Just a few to kick off the "debate"
P.S. My thoughts are you wouldn't have the agreement on the debate in by Aug 2014, let alone finish the construction by then

Well lets assume that central government makes the assertion that 1.5 million homes must be built by Aug 2014, that they divvy up the share across each local authority and essentially leave it up to them to sort out the mess.

The first think tank step would be to figure out how authorities would handle that.

I suppose it's safe to assume that those who have interested private developers would go down that route, and those that don't may have to develop social housing or do a deal with an authority that could take on their allocation. I expect that you could reason out the path of least resistance for an authority in 3-4 different situations and have an idea of the building program going forwards in terms of social, type and regional demographic from that. Then it would be a matter of stepping through the social, political and economic consequences of that building in what ever form and so on.

I think the trick to it would be to just define some start case and work out what would most likely happen in the very next step and move on from there, not what one thinks should happen in the long run.

IveSeenTheLight

danothy wrote: »

Well lets assume that central government makes the assertion that 1.5 million homes must be built by Aug 2014, that they divvy up the share across each local authority and essentially leave it up to them to sort out the mess.

The first think tank step would be to figure out how authorities would handle that.

I suppose it's safe to assume that those who have interested private developers would go down that route, and those that don't may have to develop social housing or do a deal with an authority that could take on their allocation. I expect that you could reason out the path of least resistance for an authority in 3-4 different situations and have an idea of the building program going forwards in terms of social, type and regional demographic from that. Then it would be a matter of stepping through the social, political and economic consequences of that building in what ever form and so on.

I think the trick to it would be to just define some start case and work out what would most likely happen in the very next step and move on from there, not what one thinks should happen in the long run.

Interesting start, but being a "Cause and Effect" scenario, it seems strange you've not started at the budgeting and funding for this project and gone straight to execution.

IveSeenTheLight

Jegersmart wrote: »

Ultimately, these homes would need to be funded by the taxpayer. The government has no "money" as such of their own. If they are to be funded by the "private sector" then in turn this could only be done if demand for such homes exist from taxpayers and accessibility to "credit" for such demand exists. Either way, we pay imho.

.................

Type of property? Well, in a monetary system one would build either the cheapest one can, or whatever will produce the most profit regardless of the use of resources, sustainability etc etc. -

IMHO, if this is to be social housing funded by the taxpayer, what would be the effect on the taxes to generate the funding in order to complete by 08/2014?

Personally, I think social housing should be centralised locally and built up the way.
I know of sky scrapers with 6 flats on each floor going up 18+ floors. 100+ properties in the space you could fit 3 or 4 homes
This reduces the footprint impact on the land.

From a commercial perspective, as this would be social housing, similar to previous council houses, this needs to be made available on a rental basis in order to recoup the monies outlayed and provide for maintenance going forward.

I'm still interested in the regional distribution. As a property investor, I might consider selling my rental property if there are to be 1.5 million additional rental homes in such a short period of time.
Of course this may impact the nett effect on available rental homes and of course shift the dynamics of available rental properties back to the control of the government / councils.