Suggestions for controlling house price rises

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

Too much debt is definitely bad. As we have seen.



Countries are just like people, an excess of expenditure over income can only be financed either by borrowing or selling assets. Eventually you will run out of assets to sell or the capacity to repay the borrowings.

'Too much' of anything is a bad thing: that doesn't make a sensible amount bad.
Do you consider buying a house with a mortgage as 'bad' debt?


You misunderstand the meaning of 'assets'.

Assets, on the whole aren't part of our national heritage, we create them.
They aren't a fixed amount: we create them ; not that different from building a car and selling for a profit (is that bad too?).

Nothing wrong if we can sell them at a substantial profit.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

'Too much' of anything is a bad thing: that doesn't make a sensible amount bad....

I do not disagree with that statement.

CLAPTON wrote: »

....You misunderstand the meaning of 'assets'.....

No, I think I undestand perfectly well that if you can sell it, it's an asset.:)

CLAPTON wrote: »

..Assets, on the whole aren't part of our national heritage, we create them.
They aren't a fixed amount: we create them ; not that different from building a car and selling for a profit (is that bad too?)

Nothing wrong if we can sell them at a substantial profit.

Except that, of course, if you sell your own car, you then have to pay the new owner for the right to carry on driving it. In economic terms, an asset is a resource that generates future economic benefits; by selling it you deprive yourself of those future economic benefits.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

I do not disagree with that statement.



No, I think I undestand perfectly well that if you can sell it, it's an asset.:)



Except that, of course, if you sell your own car, you then have to pay the new owner for the right to carry on driving it. In economic terms, an asset is a resource that generates future economic benefits; by selling it you deprive yourself of those future economic benefits.

that assumes we don't/can't create new assets.

a machine tool is an asset : is it wrong to manufacture and sell it: clearly no.


if you have evidence /data that the UK is running out of assets and not creating new ones then that would be very interesting.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

that assumes we don't/can't create new assets.....

New assets can only be created by investing financial resources in the creation of the assets. And you now have less available, because you are having to use some of those financial resources to pay for those assets you've just sold.

CLAPTON wrote: »

...a machine tool is an asset : is it wrong to manufacture and sell it: clearly no.

It's not an asset as far as the manufacturer is concerned, it's a product.

CLAPTON wrote: »

..
if you have evidence /data that the UK is running out of assets and not creating new ones then that would be very interesting.

We sold Cadbury to Kraft. What evidence is there of anyone in the UK creating a new Cadbury to replace the one we sold?

Eventually you will run out of assets. Granted eventually might be a long time coming. But that doesn't mean that you can just ignore a persistent large current account deficit and pretend it doesn't matter.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

New assets can only be created by investing financial resources in the creation of the assets. And you now have less available, because you are having to use some of those financial resources to pay for those assets you've just sold.



It's not an asset as far as the manufacturer is concerned, it's a product.



We sold Cadbury to Kraft. What evidence is there of anyone in the UK creating a new Cadbury to replace the one we sold?

Eventually you will run out of assets. Granted eventually might be a long time coming. But that doesn't mean that you can just ignore a persistent large current account deficit and pretend it doesn't matter.

companies are being created all the time; some will grow and some will not

if they sell products or themselves it's much of a muchness.

TickersPlaysPop

So much has been posted I can't incorporate everything since iveseenthelight posted a message to me.

The last graph seems to show that owner occupiers are decreasing and have been for a while... also, the renters are increasing, accelerated by the influx of people no doubt.

My main worry is that these trends will continue, and the housing market never drops to correct some of the gains. This would mean we are heading into a UK where properties will be out of the reach of purchase for many with no way of turning back or fixing the situation.

I agree many properties are 'affordable' right now in many parts of the UK, but we are close to the limit and more gains as we have seen in past 2yrs will push us over the limit.

London is a special case, but if the world sees property investment in London as a sure thing, the over seas investment will increase and also spill out form Central London, which will start to affects the Home Counties more. Which is not a good thing... Mark Carney at BOE himself said he was concerned about foreign investment in London.

As I said, consider the fact that we might never see a correction in the market... where will that leave us? If we do nothing now before it gets even more crazy there will be nothing we can do. A generation will not prosper from yrs of paying rent....

It is a shame the 16-30 yr olds do not vote in more numbers.... they have no idea what is going on with housing, but they will soon wake up and take action if things get worse. If the young voted politicians would be forced to take action.

TickersPlaysPop

Please do not say "build more houses"!

As somebody posted here... there is no way house building will ramp up quickly enough to stem the increase in property prices... it will fuel the boom?!

mobfant

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Please do not say "build more houses"!

As somebody posted here... there is no way house building will ramp up quickly enough to stem the increase in property prices... it will fuel the boom?!

No it won't ramp up quickly enough. But nor are there other more effective, more realistic, and more fair (for the rest of the country) options out there.

TickersPlaysPop

We need more houses and controls around it to stop the extra houses making things worse.

Maybe open new properties to owner occupiers only for 6mths and then opening it for buy to let ? And let local councils decide to what degree this is needed in their area.

wotsthat

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Please do not say "build more houses"!

As somebody posted here... there is no way house building will ramp up quickly enough to stem the increase in property prices... it will fuel the boom?!

We need more houses.

All of the other stuff discussed is designed to prevent people from doing what they want i.e. buy a house. What's the point of making it more difficult to buy a house and forcing more people to live in each house when people want to buy their own?

Prices are going up because there's a shortage of housing and the improved economy and population increase is fuelling demand.

Building more houses is simpler than reducing the population and only the nutters would welcome a declining economy in exchange for lower house prices.

We need to build more houses - sorry.