A "full-scale property boom will begin in 2014"

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You see, OffGrid, all I'm wondering is what's made you change your tune so much?

This is your previous stance on house prices and stimulus..

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=61142619&postcount=52

I'm just wondering what has made you change your tune so much? The above was in response to stimulus pushing prices up. Simple question really. Theres a lot of your older posts which don't seem to tally with what you state now just a month later?

*sigh* I keep saying the same thing Graham and you keep ignoring it. I'll try one last time and then either you'll get it or you won't (or you just don't want to get it).

I don't believe that the government stimulus is designed to prop up house prices (for the reasons I gave earlier - I'm not going through them again). Therefore I don't believe that the government is increasing the economy's reliance on house prices.

I do believe that stimulus to encourage the building of more houses will increase supply and therefore help to reduce house prices. If we have more housing stock then we will take the heat out of the housing market and hopefully investors will go elsewhere for better profits (shares and corporate bonds would be great as it helps with investment in industry) and so the economy will be less reliant on house prices.

There is no change of stance, except in your mind.

shortchanged_2

[QUOTE=OffGridLiving;62323023
I do believe that stimulus to encourage the building of more houses will increase supply and therefore help to reduce prices.

[/QUOTE]

Come on, pull the other one.

Graham_Devon

OffGridLiving wrote: »

I don't believe that the government stimulus is designed to prop up house prices (for the reasons I gave earlier - I'm not going through them again). Therefore I don't believe that the government is increasing the economy's reliance on house prices.

So why was it such a shame, in your words, as quoted, that stimulus was pushing prices up then?

I'm not here to suggest you have said something you haven't. You stated what I quoted. What I quoted seems at parallels to what you state now?

It's almost as if you were trying then, or are trying now to put across another persona? Either that or you are very confused?

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So why was it such a shame, in your words, as quoted, that stimulus was pushing prices up then?

I'm not here to suggest you have said something you haven't. You stated what I quoted. What I quoted seems at parallels to what you state now?

It's almost as if you were trying then, or are trying now to put across another persona? Either that or you are very confused?

Let's have the full discussion if you're going to pick at it with a fine tooth comb:

OffGridLiving wrote: »

chucknorris wrote: »

You seem to think that we can have falling house prices and a healthy economy, it isn't going to happen that way.

This is true and a real shame. The UK would do well to decouple the economy from its huge reliance on the housing market. Rather than having people feel 'richer' because of rising prices and starting to spend in the economy, they could actually feel more secure in their jobs and have more disposible income and start spending in the economy (i.e. actually be richer).

Sustainability isn't just about resources, it's about economies. A model that relies on ever increasing asset prices is flawed. We should look at following the German model and actually get rich from working hard and exporting, not by investing all our wealth in properties and sitting idle as they rise.

Chuck said we can't have falling house prices and a healthy economy. I agreed and said it was a shame because we need to decouple the economy from house prices.

As I said in my previous post (which you seem unable to understand), I can't see this decoupling happening while we have a shortage of housing keeping house prices high.

The way to decouple the economy from house prices is to build more houses so that investors move elsewhere (into shares and corporate bonds, where the money is used to invest in industry).

If we reduce house prices artificially without first decoupling them from the economy, then the economy would suffer. It's not rocket science Graham.

OffGridLiving

shortchanged wrote: »

Come on, pull the other one.

So you don't believe that the shortage of housing is helping to keep house prices high?

ILW

OffGridLiving wrote: »

I do believe that stimulus to encourage the building of more houses will increase supply and therefore help to reduce house prices. If we have more housing stock then we will take the heat out of the housing market and hopefully investors will go elsewhere for better profits (shares and corporate bonds would be great as it helps with investment in industry) and so the economy will be less reliant on house prices.

There is no change of stance, except in your mind.

A point that the government seem to chose to ignore. The amount invested in BTL on the whole will actually restrict growth and employment. Whereas cash invested in industry will stimulate both. Yet it appears that the result of current policies is to make BTL the better investment choice. I do wonder whether the large proportion of government and central bankers who are also property investors and landlords does sometimes sway the policy making.

shortchanged_2

OffGridLiving wrote: »

So you don't believe that the shortage of housing is helping to keep house prices high?

No I accept that.

I don't actually believe that you want extra supply to push prices downwards or that you think it will actually happen.

OffGridLiving

ILW wrote: »

A point that the government seem to chose to ignore. The amount invested in BTL on the whole will actually restrict growth and employment. Whereas cash invested in industry will stimulate both. Yet it appears that the result of current policies is to make BTL the better investment choice. I do wonder whether the large proportion of government and central bankers who are also property investors and landlords does sometimes sway the policy making.

Thanks ILW, at least someone understands my point.

OffGridLiving

shortchanged wrote: »

No I accept that.

I don't actually believe that you want extra supply to push prices downwards or that you think it will actually happen.

Ah, sorry I thought you were actually entering into a decent discussion, not just trolling. My mistake.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

brit1234 wrote: »

Sorry but that is utterly untrue.

Wrong again Brit.

As this excellent article points out.....

The truth about UK debt

We all had a binge, and now we have to pay."

It's an excellent morality tale, which chimes well with the British tendency towards self-flagellation.

There's just one problem.

It's not really true.

The overall quality of UK residential mortgage lending had the square root of naff-all to do with the banks needing bailouts.

In a nutshell, that's the argument that Ben Broadbent, a member of the Monetary Policy Committee has made, convincingly, in a new speech.

He says that debt is indeed a large part of what caused the crisis, and a large part of the explanation for Britain's historically feeble recovery.

But the debt that's caused the problems hasn't been the debt of households.

It really has been down to silly bets by Britain's banks (and other parts of the financial system), which were NOT bets on UK residential property.

Most of them weren't even in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17398014