We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Radio 4: Bricks and Bubbles
Comments
-
the_flying_pig wrote: »
(a) why were so many more houses built during the 90s [a decade in which house prices barely increased,
Well actually more were built in the 00's, during the run up to 2007 anyway, than were in the 90's....
But the big increase above private building in the 90's was from housing associations.
Private building rose quite dramatically during the years of rising prices in the noughties, albeit from a low base.
As indeed they are again today, now that prices are rising, with new starts up 34% in the last 12 months.given this trend mightn't it be better to try to recapture whatever it was that was getting houses built in the 90s
Sure.
Build more council houses, more HA houses, more private houses, just more houses of all types.
We have a housing shortage.
We need more of them. Of all types.
But until we do that, trying to limit house price growth through restricting the numbers of mortgages being issued can only lead to fewer houses being built, the shortage worsening, and rents rising.
As we have seen over the last 7 years.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
The limited supply element is not the always the arbiter or means to negate or provide protection from a Bubble / Crash.
Tokyo was touted as being a resilient due to the finite supply of land / property and they still fell victim to a bubble and crash.
Of course you cannot compare one to the other and equate a common outcome, as there are many different variables at play, but the whole area of thinking its a finite resource and so will always go up, is not true.0 -
The limited supply element is not the always the arbiter or means to negate or provide protection from a Bubble / Crash.
Tokyo was touted as being a resilient due to the finite supply of land / property and they still fell victim to a bubble and crash.
.
In 1989 the land under the Emperors palace in Tokyo was estimated to be worth more than the entire state of California.
The Chairman of Sony complained he couldn't afford to buy a house in Tokyo.
And land in prime areas was selling for US$1,000,000 a square metre in 1989 dollars......
That isn't remotely what we have in the UK.....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
the whole area of thinking its a finite resource and so will always go up, is not true.
It will not always go up 'because it's a finite resource'.
Nobody is claiming that.
It will go up until enough people are priced out that supply and demand equalise.
And we're nowhere near that point yet.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
They rise according to what the proportion of the population makes up the demand. As the demand is much higher than supply it can only increase.
And the population use what, chocolate buttons maybe, to buy the constantly increasing asset? Stop posting this nonsense man, you will end up like Hamish!0 -
Crashy_Time wrote: »you will end up like Hamish!
What, buying a house for yourself instead of your landlord?
It's great..... You should try it sometime.
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Crashy_Time wrote: »And the population use what, chocolate buttons maybe, to buy the constantly increasing asset? Stop posting this nonsense man, you will end up like Hamish!
Not everyone earns or has the same amount of cash and/or equity.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Well actually more were built in the 00's, during the run up to 2007 anyway, than were in the 90's....
But the big increase above private building in the 90's was from housing associations.
Private building rose quite dramatically during the years of rising prices in the noughties, albeit from a low base.
As indeed they are again today, now that prices are rising, with new starts up 34% in the last 12 months.
Sure.
Build more council houses, more HA houses, more private houses, just more houses of all types.
We have a housing shortage.
We need more of them. Of all types.
But until we do that, trying to limit house price growth through restricting the numbers of mortgages being issued can only lead to fewer houses being built, the shortage worsening, and rents rising.
As we have seen over the last 7 years.
What that graph says to me first and foremost, is that there is absolutely no hope of "the market" providing the solution to this problem on it's own. We need to get back to the days of the public sector chipping in with six figure build levels every year if we're going to solve this problem. However, given the current political orthodoxy that the free market is the solution to everything, it's difficult to see how that will happen.0 -
Crashy_Time wrote: »And the population use what, chocolate buttons maybe, to buy the constantly increasing asset? Stop posting this nonsense man, you will end up like Hamish!
Seriously, if that's your idea of contribuiting to the debate, you're best off not bothering. These boards desperately need the counter arguments to the majority view (on here) that HPI is going to continue indefinitely (which I personally agree with, apart from the very short term prospects for London, which is a different matter), and is desirable (which I definitely do not agree with) to be made. But running round insulting people is not the way to do it.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »
It will go up until enough people are priced out that supply and demand equalise
Do you not think market sentiment has a role to play? At the moment the general consensus seems to be that HPI will continue making people more at ease with borrowing huge sums of money.
Maybe a change in "consumer" confidence which is subject to so many factors, many of them unpredictable and suddenly the idea of over-stretching oneself for the sake of a mortgage doesn't seem such a good idea?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards