Crash postponed?

Woby_Tide

dannyboycey wrote: »

Maybe so. But the figures are severely skewed. Look at the stats for individual regions.

Including London or even Northern Ireland in housing stats is ridiculous. They need to bee looked at in isolation.

I don't see Northern Ireland in the stats? Either way taking into account inflation and excluding the London figures all regions are still in 'positive' territory and higher than last year. Stagnating/slow growth rather than crashing still looks a better description if any

littlesaint

Just a word on the new unit: The people on it aren't dummies. The chair used to be on the BoE Monetary Policy Committee. Paul Cheshire is a housing expert, Max Steinberg is responsible for housing market renewal in Lancashire (an earlier poster mentioned bulldozing terraces - that's what HMR can somethings do), Bob Lane is cheif executive of an Urban Development Company - he really knows his stuff (I've heard he's not keen on Buy to Let) and theres also a civil servant and representative of mortgage lenders on the team.

Guy_Montag

littlesaint wrote: »

Just a word on the new unit: The people on it aren't dummies. The chair used to be on the BoE Monetary Policy Committee. Paul Cheshire is a housing expert, Max Steinberg is responsible for housing market renewal in Lancashire (an earlier poster mentioned bulldozing terraces - that's what HMR can somethings do), Bob Lane is cheif executive of an Urban Development Company - he really knows his stuff (I've heard he's not keen on Buy to Let) and theres also a civil servant and representative of mortgage lenders on the team.

who's representing ftbers?

baby_boomer

BTman wrote: »

This post just stinks of a VI that is getting worried to me...
You're not an EA are you? or a baby boomer who has MEWed to the max and are a bit worried about paying off your LARGE debts???:rotfl: :rotfl:

So VI =vested interest = biased for a financial reason.

Why not play the ball (the argument) rather than than the (wo)man? I'm surprised that some of the derogatory comments have received others' thanks.

Another aspect of biased posting, often more subtle, is what is omitted or not said.

Given that the Times story took up the front page and had a double page spread on pages 6-7 I'm surprised that it took until after 1 pm for anyone to post the story on the housing section of MSE. I'm happy to be corrected here, but I did have a look through recent posts before I started this thread.

And it was a new story. Not just that house prices would keep rising with wages, against the views of many here, but that they could continue to outpace wages for some time - based on some established facts about the growth in demand for new housing.

Surely that's worth discussing seriously?

Today's Telegraph leads today on the ever rising UK birth rate.

Migrants push UK birth rate to 26 year high

They also have

Mum & dad prop up first time buyers under 30

And I wonder what people think of the designer "micro" homes "Japanese style" with folding beds etc which were exhibited on BBC news.

hearts

sm9ai wrote: »

Yes, how dare we talk about the failure of this government to the young people of today.

This government have done no more or less than any other government would have done. Too many people choose the easy option and jump on the first bogeyman they are pointed at. Do you really think the tories would have had a much different approach to housing? Do you really think prices would have been any different now? Not at all. Had we had a tory government for the last few terms we would still be sitting exactly where we are now only some other idiot would be blaming them ;-)

keeperbear

When people talk about a housing crash do they factor in recent falls on the world's stock exchanges? If stocks are falling, you might as well keep your property investments/house.

jnoempire

Property crash is an effect of something else. It will only crash if certain people who pull the financial strings wants it to crash. As with everything else if there is a demand, the price of the good will rise as more people compete for the same product.

What will I think happen (my opinion) is there maybe at worse a brief stagnation in the property market, as too cool things down. The effect on a property crash on the on the UK economy will be too devastating.

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

The idea is that the Baby Boomers had MIRAS and loose monetary policy to help pay their interest, planning laws that allowed houses to be built, inflation to pay off most of the principal sum and pension policies that meant that they didn't have to save for their own pension if employed as their kids would pay them.

The accusation is that they then became NIMBYs - refusing to have any more houses built near them to prop of the value of their own house. Also, the younger generations are looking at having to save for 2 pensions, that of their parents and their own.

People talk about the young whinging and wanting it all now but there's no way that a young professional couple will afford what my parents had in terms of housing and pension without big cuts in what the state does (and thus taxes) and most likely a house building program.

The trouble is that the 'young professional couple' want much more than its parents did (a house with ensuite bathrooms and 'wet' rooms of course, holidays, large, flat-screen TVs, etc., etc.). You even hear students talking about buying a 'house' (not even a flat!) and feeling aggrieved that they can't afford one!

The 'baby boomer' generation mostly worked incredibly hard without many luxuries early on – a fact that is not appreciated by those who expect it all to be handed to them on a plate. People of that generation lived much more modestly in their twenties and thirties than do people of this generation.

It's a shame about the greed and envy and the culture of blame that pervades society today. :rolleyes:

Ah well, I guess it's the 'baby boomer' generation's fault for having spoiled their brats too much. They really don't know what hardship is. :cool:

And why ignore the fact that it is young BTLs buying property 'portfolios' who are largely to blame for the huge rises in property prices? That and the fact that London is currently a leading, successful financial centre, and that moneylenders have been allowed to lend money to people at an unprecedented high level?

Gorgeous_George

On the other hand. baby-boomers did not have fat inheritances to look forward to.

Also, kids that got pregnant did not have such generous benefits and didn't get free houses so easily.



GG

Generali

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

On the other hand. baby-boomers did not have fat inheritances to look forward to.

The inheritance thing is a myth - decreasing numbers of workers aren't going to be able to pay the care costs for 10 years of ever longer living baby boomers. The old are going to be forced to sell their homes to pay for it.

You may not like that. You may think that's unfair, but the reality is that you can't work for 30-40 years and be kept in splendor for another 25 years afterwards by paying 11% National Insurance. Especially when that NI was spent years ago.

The baby boomers were lied to by successive governments, they were told that the state pension wasn't a Ponzi scheme when that's exactly what it is.