Could the UK be the first to raise interest rates?

MrRee_2

If I was selfish then I would love 10% IR's ..... but, with an eye to those who have bought houses with the cheapest money the world has ever known would most likely get hurt badly.

The ONLY time that rates will increase is May 2015 .... if they do at all. There is an Election in May 2015 remember!

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

How many houses can they build for £20Bn?
When you work it out, they'll need to spend about £40 Bn EVERY year, not just on one off projects.

Over a term, that's an additional £200Bn or so to find.

I think you'll find that the governments are running a deficit and are trying to cut back on spending.

No, it's not.

Your post assumes that any infrastructure cannot raise an income or be sold.

As an example, if they build £10bn worth of homes and sell £10bn worth of homes, the cash position is neutral. The £10bn doesn't simply vanish.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No, it's not.

Your post assumes that any infrastructure cannot raise an income or be sold.

As an example, if they build £10bn worth of homes and sell £10bn worth of homes, the cash position is neutral. The £10bn doesn't simply vanish.

Did you read the article I posted.
There is a complete shortage of social housing.

Your talking about the government dipping it's toes into the private market and affecting private businesses.

Is that your position, the government should fund housing and sell privately at cost.
Why would anyone buy privately again?
You'd increase building on one hand and stifle the market in another.

Try thinking a bit more on your "simple solution"

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Did you read the article I posted.
There is a complete shortage of social housing.

Your talking about the government dipping it's toes into the private market and affecting private businesses.

Is that your position, the government should fund housing and sell privately at cost.
Why would anyone buy privately again?
You'd increase building on one hand and stifle the market in another.

Try thinking a bit more on your "simple solution"

The government already does this. HTB. SMI. RTB.

We built the Olympic village and then sold it off. What's different here?

I never said anything about buying at cost. You've applied that yourself.

Though if your issue is the selling bit, fine, rent them out. The £10bn provides an income. My point still stands. You get the money back, it doesn't vanish.

As an aside, automatically and instantly throwing insults around, suggesting another poster who has disagreed with you is "simple".... well, it kind of backfires... as your insult doesn't add anything to the discussion other than having a go all rather pointlessly.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We built the Olympic village and then sold it off.

To put it simply for you, the Olympics was a good thing for the country for numerous reasons. If you don't understand that then it looks like it's simply gone straight over your head.

Throwing money, wanting the government to build houses simply doesn't does not solve the problem. Creating jobs and infrastructure in areas where there will be demand for houses will increase the demand for houses to be built. It is quite simple.

I have explained this to you so many times now that you still continue to not understand the simplest of concepts.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

This is a simplistic report, but one that goes a little way to explaining the issue

http://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/editors-blog/2014/feb/27/cameron-get-britain-building-housebuilding-statistics

Very simplistic. As doesn't address the practical issues of building in quantity. Skilled labour and materials spring to mind.

Rebalancing the economy is going to take time.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The government already does this. HTB. SMI. RTB.

LOL, come one Graham, think about these schemes.

HTB = Help To Buy is a scheme to help individuals to buy from private companies. It's support to encourage confidence for those to buy and stimulate the market. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING HOMES DIRECTLY AND THEN SELLING TO THE PUBLIC


SMI = Support for Mortgage Interest is to support (for a short time) people to pay their mortgage interest until they are able to support themselves. If the government did not support this, then likely it would cost in other ways i.e. housing homeless families.IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING HOMES DIRECTLY AND THEN SELLING TO THE PUBLIC

RTB = Right To Buy. This is the funniest part of your post. The Right To Buy scheme entitled many to purchase their social housing Which in my opinion is the root cause of the shortage of social housing. You could argue that the government built homes historically and then sold off, however as I said, this in hindsight has created the shortage of social homes for the succeeding generations. This is not a solution as you would propose

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Very simplistic. As doesn't address the practical issues of building in quantity. Skilled labour and materials spring to mind.

Rebalancing the economy is going to take time.

I agree it is very simplistic, however the longer the country takes to address the building shortage to meet the growing needs, the greater the issue.

I simply linked a report which simply articulated the issue, not the solution.

I agree it is a challenge to rebalance the economy and fulfill the countries building shortage, which is what I was pointing out to Graham.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We built the Olympic village and then sold it off. What's different here?

Who was the Olympic Village sold to?

The Olympic Village was today sold to a Middle Eastern developer for £557 million in a deal that leaves UK taxpayers about £175 million out of pocket.

It was bought by Qatari Diar, the oil-rich state's investment arm, and retail developer Delancey and will be converted into a neighbourhood of 2,800 homes after the Games.

Is this your solution, build and sell at a loss?
This is a loss of £175 million for only 2,800 homes.

Now I understand that the Olympics brought much more to the economy than just the property asset, however this is not an example of good building practice

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I never said anything about buying at cost. You've applied that yourself.

What you said was: -

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As an example, if they build £10bn worth of homes and sell £10bn worth of homes, the cash position is neutral. The £10bn doesn't simply vanish.

I naturally inferred that you are selling at cost, although I could accept that maybe (although I doubt it) you might have meant build 100% and sell off say 50%, retaining 50% in social homes.

If that were the case, then you are still looking for the government to be a competitor to the private market selling homes at market value as opposed to at a discount under RTB or any other proposed discount scheme.