Action must be taken on house prices in London

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If you are arguing that you didn't say anything about BTL lending, then I will agree, you didnt.

Indeed, so I didn't say anything about BTL lending, the person I was quoting didn't say anything about BTL lending and no one else mentioned BTL lending anywhere in the thread until AFTER our comments. Glad that you've figured it out at last. It's not rocket science after all.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, discussions progress as a result of what you have, or haven't said. That is, the whole point of discussion.

While a discussion can evolve and move onto different subjects/topics, time is linear and so an earlier conversation cannot reference a later conversation. Hence, talking about BTL lending later in a thread does not then mean the conversation earlier in the thread was also about BTL lending. Well, except in your muddled mind.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry if I have somehow offended you.

While your constant attempts to muddle and turn this into (yet another) 'Graham Devon Show' thread is offensive, I'm used to it and so I'm not personally offended. I (and other regulars) will continue to calmly and systematically point out your muddling and strawman building to those who may not know your tactics quite as well and then turn the conversation back to the topic. :cool:

Graham_Devon

As I said on page one, this forum is becoming pointless and tedious. Post above just oozes every single reason why.

Jason74

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

The trouble is that you've fallen for GD's strawman argument. Let's go right back to the start:



My reply was that people have always seen property as an investment, both for renting out and for upsizing and downsizing.

If you feel that my argument is incorrect, then feel free to comment on my argument alone - not on GD's strawman.

I haven't fallen for any "straw man" argument at all. You have stated that people have always to some extent viewed property as an investment. This is true, and I agreed with that in my previous post.

The discusion the continued, and GD pointed out that the use of property as an investment vehicle has incereased dramatically over the last 15 years or so as a result of BTL mortgages. This is a reasonable point to raise in the context of the discussion.The first part of his statement is also factually correct, withthe 2nd part of it likely to be the cause based on available evidence.

Both your statement and Graham's subsequent assertion are largely true . Agreeing with one doesn't preclude agreeing with the other , and both are relevant in the context of the discussion. I don't think it's fair to accuse people of constructing a "straw man" when they are simply taking the debate forward based on what has already been posted.

It's a shame that I even need to post this, as it's enjoyable to debate what I think are important issues with people with a variety of different views (and the posts I most enjoy are often those I disagree with). But some of the sniping takes a lot of the fun (and value) out of the debate, which is a real shame.

Jason74

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well I would argue London property is a scarce resource, that needs to be used for maximum economic benefit.

And I suppose in that comment is the root of all the areas we disagree on around housing. I am passionately of the view that that by far the most important funcrion of housing is to provide people with a safe and secure home.

It is of course a financial asset as well, and for many people (me included) it's the biggest asset they will ever own. But for me, it's utility and social value as a home should always have precedence over its financial and economic value as an asset. From our debates (which I have enjoyed immensly as you have been the very definition of a "worthy opponent"), it is clear that you consider the financial / economic angle to be at least as important as anything else.

Given the above, it's no surprise that we've geberally been on the opposite side of debates. We're just looking at it from very different perepsctives. So while I completely agree with you on what is likely to happen in the next few years, you think those outcomes will be great,and I think they're terrible (even though on paper, I stand to "gain" from them). But it was certainly fun :beer:

MFW_ASAP

Jason74 wrote: »

I am passionately of the view that that by far the most important funcrion of housing is to provide people with a safe and secure home.

Ah, that explains it then. :cool:

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

And I suppose in that comment is the root of all the areas we disagree on around housing. I am passionately of the view that that by far the most important funcrion of housing is to provide people with a safe and secure home.

It is of course a financial asset as well, and for many people (me included) it's the biggest asset they will ever own. But for me, it's utility and social value as a home should always have precedence over its financial and economic value as an asset. From our debates (which I have enjoyed immensly as you have been the very definition of a "worthy opponent"), it is clear that you consider the financial / economic angle to be at least as important as anything else.

Given the above, it's no surprise that we've geberally been on the opposite side of debates. We're just looking at it from very different perepsctives. So while I completely agree with you on what is likely to happen in the next few years, you think those outcomes will be great,and I think they're terrible (even though on paper, I stand to "gain" from them). But it was certainly fun :beer:

do you materially behavour different from the person that sees their home as an asset?

e.g have you bought the smallest possible property to meet your actual NEEDS (rather than wants) for accommodation?

i.e. based on a children sharing a bedroom, small/no garden
or have you bought a larger property (obviously for you to have a safe and secure home)?

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

do you materially behavour different from the person that sees their home as an asset?

e.g have you bought the smallest possible property to meeet you actual NEEDS (rather than wants) for accommodation?

i.e. based on a children sharing a bedroom, small/no garden
or have you bought a larger property (obviously for you to have a safe and secure home)?

I assume he also doesn't do any home improvement due to the fear of increasing his house's value and pricing out the next generation when he comes to sell.