BOE: "Not our job to regulate house prices"

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Who said anything about giving them the house? That, would be absurd.

Again, for the second time, you appear to be making stuff up to make your argument?

The history of council housing in the UK is stranger than anything I could make up. We built loads, let people live in them on the cheap and then gave them away for a song.

You keep clicking your heels together and dreaming of the happily ever after where this could never happen again.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Do you really think it is possible to build enough houses in London and the surrounding area to bring rent down to a level where someone on minimum wage could afford the rent I don't.
Your ans seems to be to force people to share but considering these jobs are needed I don't agree.

I do agree people who can afford to should pay more social housing.

Planning to deal with this by building houses and subsidising people so they can get into London to do minimum wage jobs is the way of madness. Why should the taxpayer be subsidising someone to clean an office occupied by the world's highest net worth individuals?

The UK extends beyond London and the surrounding area.

michaels

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Quote I am not sure how an energy company, for example, supplying an non differentiated commodity to people in this country at full price generate economic income into this country. Mange the outflow and take a cut yes.

I have never said that the state should own and control everything that is just your polarised mind.

It appears that we are quite happy to engage with other state owned and backed companies to take over and run our industry but seem totally incapable of doing anything for ourself, apart from run casino banking operations on our turf. It is almost as though we are becoming the money laundering capital.

You argue that state provision is cheaper than private because there is no profit margin to pay. So surely allowing a foreign state owned company to supply our power is ideal, they take the risk but don't demand the profit that is normally paid to those who take risk - UK consumers subsidised by the French govt...G&Ts all round?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Quote I am not sure how an energy company, for example, supplying an non differentiated commodity to people in this country at full price generate economic income into this country. Mange the outflow and take a cut yes.

I have never said that the state should own and control everything that is just your polarised mind.

It appears that we are quite happy to engage with other state owned and backed companies to take over and run our industry but seem totally incapable of doing anything for ourself, apart from run casino banking operations on our turf. It is almost as though we are becoming the money laundering capital.

It is indeed possible for a company providing undifferentiated products to improve efficiency.

It is fairly unlikely that it would lead to lower prices if it were a monopoly : with competition then it's likely.

I'm sure you can find me an exception but I can't recall a single post of yours that has ever mentioned a private company in a positive light.

a typical example

Happy for Apple to fleece customers as I don't have to purchase their products.

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

The history of council housing in the UK is stranger than anything I could make up. We built loads, let people live in them on the cheap and then gave them away for a song.
.

But if we hadn't given them away cheap and as you said earlier put a system in to ensure people who can afford to pay more do I think we would be in a better position than we are now.

At least we wouldn't renting the same properties at a much higher rate.

ukcarper

I notice a lot of people arguing against social house like me believe it is much better to buy your own house rather than rent long term, but they do not apply the same logic to social housing. If the often used argument that a renter is buying the landlords property is true are the government not doing the same when they place a person in a BTL.

grizzly1911

michaels wrote: »

You argue that state provision is cheaper than private because there is no profit margin to pay. So surely allowing a foreign state owned company to supply our power is ideal, they take the risk but don't demand the profit that is normally paid to those who take risk - UK consumers subsidised by the French govt...G&Ts all round?

I question whether we get a more efficient use of money by key services being provided by everything being in private hands and left to market forces. I make the point that central inefficiency = compounded profit taking.Unfortunately cheap doesn't necessarily to long term stability in supply of key services.Long term investment today stands a better chance of long term savings. You know what they say about buying on the never never.

The foreign state owned /backed companies are not taking the risk we the consumer and tax payer are. AIUI something like 88/90 sizeable contract for the nuclear build will be placed outside the UK. 40 years down the line who will be paying to sort out the long terms storage of the waste. Something tells me the funds put aside during the supply stage will not meet the cost either.

ukcarper wrote:

I notice a lot of people arguing against social house like me believe it is much better to buy your own house rather than rent long term, but they do not apply the same logic to social housing. If the often used argument that a renter is buying the landlords property is true are the government not doing the same when they place a person in a BTL.

This point never gets answered for some reason.

The need to house a certain number of citizens is never going to be eradicated. there will always be a demand unless some radical change in political direction materialises.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

It is indeed possible for a company providing undifferentiated products to improve efficiency.

It is fairly unlikely that it would lead to lower prices if it were a monopoly : with competition then it's likely.

I'm sure you can find me an exception but I can't recall a single post of yours that has ever mentioned a private company in a positive light.

a typical example

It is indeed possible for centrally controlled functions to operate more efficiently.

Many large corporates are far from the zenith of efficiency.

There are many worthwhile private enterprises.

I have just had to smile I have just passed a major supermarket store and sat outside was a van with an advertising a new Aldi supermarket down the road. That is offering choice and value and they should be applauded for it.

The group of six waddling round taking it in turns to be cheaper for awhile, increasing prices in a different order each year to deflect criticism. Supplying two identical products with a near guaranteed predictable demand whilst keeping six operational cost centres going doesn't necessarily strike me as being the pinnacle of competition.

If we could load our meter with credit and shop on a weekly basis for our supplier it might make them less complacent.

Most major brands do fleece gullible people. that is what they are designed to do and that is why they are brought and sold for such a premium.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

I notice a lot of people arguing against social house like me believe it is much better to buy your own house rather than rent long term, but they do not apply the same logic to social housing. If the often used argument that a renter is buying the landlords property is true are the government not doing the same when they place a person in a BTL.

There will always been a need for the state to provide social housing. However, it's gone way beyond looking after the poor and vulnerable in our society. You'll argue that this is a policy that could be changed to allocate social housing based on need but, as we know, giving stuff away is much more easy than taking it back again.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

There will always been a need for the state to provide social housing. However, it's gone way beyond looking after the poor and vulnerable in our society. You'll argue that this is a policy that could be changed to allocate social housing based on need but, as we know, giving stuff away is much more easy than taking it back again.

Quote if they don't need it then make them pay full wack for it and reinvest the surplus.