Anatole Kaletsky - Osborne's house price boom likely to work

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And as the article points out...twice, it's cynical, hypocritical and manipulative.

So that question seems to have been answered by this particular writer.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And as it also points out.... twice, it looks like it's going to work.

Who knows, perhaps by making it easier to get planning permission whilst acting to resolve the failings in the mortgage market perhaps supply can rise with demand for once.

That would be a great outcome: houses remain relatively affordable, builders, engineers etc get work and more people get to own nice houses. It's hard to see who loses out.

MacMickster

Generali wrote: »

Who knows, perhaps by making it easier to get planning permission whilst acting to resolve the failings in the mortgage market perhaps supply can rise with demand for once.

That would be a great outcome: houses remain relatively affordable, builders, engineers etc get work and more people get to own nice houses. It's hard to see who loses out.

Only those who have paid a premium to see green fields from their bedroom windows, but I don't think that we should feel too sorry for them.

purch

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Am I supposed to know who Anatole Kaletsky is?

He is the "economic guru" who wrote an article in the Times in January 2008 titled......“Goodbye to all that: the worst is over for the global credit crunch“ :eek: ‘There will be no US recession’ :eek: and also this little pearl of wisdom ‘Stock markets around the world will rise in 2008′ :eek:

He blamed "unpredictable human behaviour" for being so wrong.

Basically his always repeated theme is that everything is going to be fine.

He's basically Paul Krugman, but even more wrong all the time.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This is amusing, considering the majority of your posts focus on extracting the best possible scenario of any given situation in order to suggest it will all be OK.

It may well turn out to be a disaster. That's the risk.

We could do nothing (the option of choice for the last few decades) but that seems to have left us with insufficient houses. We could wait for the government to commence a massive taxpayer funded building programme but that's not going to happen.

These schemes provide an incentive for buyers and builders to accept some of the risk in getting new houses built. Clearly there's a risk to the taxpayer but, realistically, what are the other options?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You miss the point.

Council housing. HA housing.

There is great demand for this. Theres nothing to "sell". Theres no "loss" to be made.

And there's little money to build them with either.

So it's extremely unlikely to happen in meaningfully more numbers than it already does.

grizzly1911

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And there's little money to build them with either.

So it's extremely unlikely to happen in meaningfully more numbers than it already does.

Plenty of money to be given out in HB to fill the boots of BTLs though:think:

I am sure some creative accounting could make the figures work if there was the will.

There isn't any money for student fees either, apparently, but most of it will be written off in due course.

Perhaps a nominal debt that passes from occupier to occupier underwritten by the government would be sufficient to shift it off the main balance sheet.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And there's little money to build them with either.

So it's extremely unlikely to happen in meaningfully more numbers than it already does.

we should borrow more, lots more.

the fact that we couldn't knock even tuppence ha'penny off the HB bill during the worst recession for aeons shows that the HB is no less of a millstone round our necks than debt [i.e. operational rather than financial leverage] - it's a cost that we can't get out of paying no matter what happens. so better to take out actual debt, & save money in hte long run.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

we should borrow more, lots more.

it's a cost that we can't get out of paying no matter what happens. so better to take out actual debt, & save money in hte long run.

Well yes, some of us have been advocating borrowing lots more at near record low rates in order to boost infrastructure spending for some time.

Your hpc mates seem to disagree however.

They seem to think that a magic unicorn will make prices lower if we can only further reduce mortgage lending, as obviously the 65% reduction in lending so far has not been enough to crash the market.

Although that does leave a number of holes in their theory about lending being responsible for the majority of price rises.

Still, best not mention that.;)

wotsthat

the_flying_pig wrote: »

we should borrow more, lots more.

George Osborne bottled it when he had the chance - remember the Osborne bond last year? 100 year debt where the borrower paid the government to lend to them. It would have been a terrible deal for the creditors but there would have been enough to build a load of houses.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And there's little money to build them with either.

So it's extremely unlikely to happen in meaningfully more numbers than it already does.

The money is already being used for other schemes which you believe theres enough money for.

Housing benefits, housing schemes, right to buy.