Who is responsible for the cost of house?

Castle

Landofwood wrote: »

Hugh Laurie?

Baldrick's cunning plan?

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Yes, you've left out buyers, who could choose not to pay the asking price. Houses, surprisingly, tend to be sold to buyers. When a house is sold the seller sells it to the buyer. The seller does not sell it to another seller.

Disgruntled buyers should get together with sympathetic sellers and agree to sell their houses at the right price. The right price is some figure lower than presently, and that enables the buyer to occupy a house they would like to occupy but that they want cheaper than others are prepared to pay.

What could be fairer than that?

I`m with you on buyers, but you need to include bankers, they facilitated the whole thing, the ordinary Joes seemed too thick to understand it. Maybe Russell Brand will do a programme on Liar Loans and all will become clear in their minds?

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

I`m with you on buyers, but you need to include bankers, they facilitated the whole thing, the ordinary Joes seemed too thick to understand it. Maybe Russell Brand will do a programme on Liar Loans and all will become clear in their minds?

Banks manufacture credit. They're no more culpable for what people do with it than B&Q are if they sell me an axe and I hit someone with it.

Southend1

westernpromise wrote: »

Sellers are price-takers from buyers.

Only if demand>supply

westernpromise

Southend1 wrote: »

Only if demand>supply

If there is a surplus of homes for sale over demand for them, sellers are still price takers. They just take a lower price.

At no point can a buyer be forced to pay what the seller wants.

C_Mababejive

clueless1807 wrote: »

Sorry guys now I've read that back it was a little....vague lol

What I mean is, who or what is responsible for the steep rise in the cost of buying a house nowadays? Estate agents, the government or maybe it is Cliff Richard or Hugh Laurie lmao

Essentially the current leap in house prices happened in around 2008/2009 when the financial crisis hit. That was when the big financial institutions got scared and ploughed all their efforts into acquiring tangible assets on their balance sheets.

The most obvious of these is houses and mortgage debt.

So houses arent really worth what people try and sell them for.

The trouble is of course that people insist on trying to sell and buy them at these falsely inflated prices.

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Banks manufacture credit. They're no more culpable for what people do with it than B&Q are if they sell me an axe and I hit someone with it.

I was banging that drum on HPC years ago, but it seems that sophisticated bankers and media outlets can (or could) persuade people (sheeple?) that borrowing to the max for property is the best way to go. Ultimately people are responsible for their borrowing/buying decisions but whether banks are culpable or not is a debateable point IMO.

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

If there is a surplus of homes for sale over demand for them, sellers are still price takers. They just take a lower price.

At no point can a buyer be forced to pay what the seller wants.[/QUOTE]


They can be persuaded though, by prevailing opinion in the media and with their family and friends etc. This is how the massive property bubble got inflated.

IveSeenTheLight

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Or drop the price of oil and crash Hamish`s home town hard thus reducing his posting rate by about 80% :rotfl:

LOL, Hey Crashy.

Wouldn't it be great if you did some research and analysed the markets before speaking absolute drivel.

Graham_Devon

westernpromise wrote: »

Banks manufacture credit. They're no more culpable for what people do with it than B&Q are if they sell me an axe and I hit someone with it.

Banks assess applicants too.

Currently there is no requirement to assess someone buying an axe.

There are assessments for many things though. Normally due to the ability to cause harm to either an individual or society itself.

So banks don't just manufacture credit. A fundamental part of their role is to assess whether the person is able to afford that credit. Just as the fundamental role of a driving examiner is to assess whether the person is safe to be on the road....a fundamental role of a psychiatrist working in an institution is to assess whether someone is a danger to society or themselves etc.