BOE Governor "housing has deep problems"

TickersPlaysPop

I'd like to see the full interview, but it's not broadcast until tomorrow....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/17/britain-housing-carney-idUSL6N0O30VK20140517

Well worth watching Sky's Murnaghan show to be broadcast in full on Sunday morning, Mark Carney warns that rising house prices represents the biggest current risk to the economy.

Chucky..... I guess you will have to disagree with my recommendation to watch this?..... please don't disappoint us by not bothering with another negative rant against me ;-) ..... Cheer up old chap.... the sun is shining

ManAtHome

Forget what they say, remember what they do....

Merv the King of toner did the odd spout now and then about excessive debt being vv bad to get an 'on the record warning' then scuttled back to BoE cellars to switch on another few printers.

Carney will do pretty much the same - keep on encouraging mal-investment but keep a 'told you so' in his back pocket (not that he's likely to get the sack for a 90%+ 'wrongness' rating anyway).

Generali

Carney has made it very clear what Britain needs to do to resolve the problem with house costs: build more.

I honestly don't understand why some people think it's more complex than that. Except for the hard of thinking of course.

Viberduo

Generali wrote: »

Carney has made it very clear what Britain needs to do to resolve the problem with house costs: build more.

I honestly don't understand why some people think it's more complex than that. Except for the hard of thinking of course.

I do not know too much about the economy but what I notice is prices being pushed up for houses because people buy a house cheap at auction spend like 15 grand doing it up and make huge profits which means its harder for other people to get onto the property ladder, also people buying houses in poor areas like in London in rough council estates then spending some money artificially making it look good i.e looks posh but costs little then selling or renting to professionals who want easy access to work areas thus taking houses away from the poor and means you have 2 extremes in same block of flats or houses i.e people living in run down properties living from one day to the next and wealthy professionals who just want the house to sleep.

wymondham

He's on the losing side when it comes to action on housing prices/stimulus I suspect. I'm not sure the Government will ever admit it needs to cool off.....


Maybe someone can ask Georges mother to have a quiet word with him .... he might listen to her?

Gangaweed

Generali wrote: »

Carney has made it very clear what Britain needs to do to resolve the problem with house costs: build more.

I honestly don't understand why some people think it's more complex than that. Except for the hard of thinking of course.

It's more complex because the South East is NIMBY land and no government, labour or conservative is willing to go against the wishes of the shires.

It's quite surprising that housing is not more of an electoral issue than it is.

The fact that a decent salary cannot buy a decent house should shame both parties.

the_flying_pig

Generali wrote: »

Carney has made it very clear what Britain needs to do to resolve the problem with house costs: build more.

I honestly don't understand why some people think it's more complex than that. Except for the hard of thinking of course.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Ramping up lending and viewing the nominal increases in building that trickle down as a side effect of higher prices as 'better than nothing' and therefore a net improvement, that's highly highly questionable, though may not be what you're suggesting.

A hundred k more council houses a year would be a great thing, I'm sure most agree.

Carney is saying that over-indebtedness is a huge threat. But this, in case it had escaped your notice, is very much within his powers to nip in the bud.

Generali

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean.

Ramping up lending and viewing the nominal increases in building that trickle down as a side effect of higher prices as 'better than nothing' and therefore a net improvement, that's highly highly questionable, though may not be what you're suggesting.

A hundred k more council houses a year would be a great thing, I'm sure most agree.

Carney is saying that over-indebtedness is a huge threat. But this, in case it had escaped your notice, is very much within his powers to nip in the bud.

Hell no, the councils of Britain showed themselves to be utterly incapable of maintaining or building homes in the 1960s and 70s.

Provide land with planning permission for builders and they'll provide houses that people want to buy. Everyone else manages it.

Gangaweed

the_flying_pig wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean.

Ramping up lending and viewing the nominal increases in building that trickle down as a side effect of higher prices as 'better than nothing' and therefore a net improvement, that's highly highly questionable, though may not be what you're suggesting.

A hundred k more council houses a year would be a great thing, I'm sure most agree.

Carney is saying that over-indebtedness is a huge threat. But this, in case it had escaped your notice, is very much within his powers to nip in the bud.

The current growth is something of a test for the government's economic competence. Labour presided over a huge growth in debt, and state largesse. The conservatives critised both however, after 5 years of no growth, they seem to have come to the conclusion that any growth is better than none, despite all the right comments about debt based bubbles and the like.

ukcarper

Generali wrote: »

Hell no, the councils of Britain showed themselves to be utterly incapable of maintaining or building homes in the 1960s and 70s.

Provide land with planning permission for builders and they'll provide houses that people want to buy. Everyone else manages it.

I don't agree we need property that can be let at less than commercial rent whether it is provided by council or HAs does not matter. I lived in council accommodation in the 60s and 70s and there was nothing wrong with it the better council managed there stock well.

ukcarper

Gangaweed wrote: »

It's more complex because the South East is NIMBY land and no government, labour or conservative is willing to go against the wishes of the shires.

It's quite surprising that housing is not more of an electoral issue than it is.

The fact that a decent salary cannot buy a decent house should shame both parties.

I don't think it is just the South East that is NIMBY land I think you would find very few people who live in areas where large developments with impact on them who aren't, it's just the housing problem is more acute in the South East.