"How China fooled the world" debt 200% of GDP

cells

TickersPlaysPop wrote:

In China they built huge areas in anticipation that the homes would be filled and the economy would support wages to pay the rent or house debt.

Yes and that's a smart thing to do in a nation where wages and materials and planning and regulation costs are all going up 10% a year

I wish I bought a house in London twenty years ago and left it empty it would have been a great investments. If ibwere Chinese and I had the savings I would buy a couple of apartments in a big city for my kids and let inflation pay them off.

The internet simply doesn't understand development. Countries need to build out their infrastructure and get the basics in place (homes transport electricity energy water business and commercial buildings etc etc) before they can change to a service economy of painting each others toe nails and going to the pictures and gigs.

If you want to see the developments future of China look at Turkey. Its 3-6 years ahead imo (although China is ahead in some sectors)

cells

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Cells...

Your message sign off still doesn't make sense to me. I think both owners and renters are moving into homes with more people per square meter. There is no reason why owners need to become renters.... owners stay as owners but end up in smaller houses as they move from property to property, and more properties are being rented out because there are less people able to buy them, due to mortgage controls, credit crunch, high value of property, competition between wannabe owner occupiers and landlord investors. Also the number of people per square meter in rental goes up due to higher rents

Your simple reason for the fast increase in rental properties and the decrease in owner occupiers places the blame and reason solely with increasing population size and low building rates. Yes we have needed more houses for a very long time, and it is that point that hugely frustrates me. The free market of housing has not worked, because simple market dynamics should have brought about more building, but it didn't. What we have now is a complete mess that is impossible to fix in a short period. It should be a governmental responsibility and bank of England target to keep wage inflation and residential property inflation in line with each other. And those values should not be the all to frequently abused stat.... the average... we need to use median stats so we serve the majority of the population, NOT averages that contain extreme salaries.

What are your views about say 1990-2000?

Prices went up yet ownership increased and rentals fell. Why was that?

My theory says we had low population growth and reasonable build rates so in the 1990s the space per person increased. That forced the equilibrium towards higher space ownership.

Or let me ask you this. Let's pretend that for the next 10 years no homes are built at all yet the population goes up by 5 million. What will be the result? It won't be homelessness instead everyone would have to love more dense. However I own my hone outright and am not willing to share with anyone else. So which group is willing which market will take these 5 million people and what will the impact be?