"Confirmation Bias" among generation who did well from house prices

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

I disagree.
No-one said they wanted their relatives to die earlier.

I think it's a relevant point that inheritances are not coming until retirement when most people have had their families and bought their home.
Personally I want our parents to spend it all enjoying themselves and will continue to encourage them to do so, however that doesn't change the fact that by and large it won't help FTBs.

Perhaps it will help grandchildren

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well if that's what you appear to believe this is all about, let's look at the generation this article is about.

Presumably that generation was always content with their lot? Never moaned about the way things were? Just got on with things? Worked harder? Took it in their stride and didn't ask for more?

It's strange therefore, that this is also the generation that held the biggest strikes in the last century. They held some of the biggest protests....poll tax riots anyone?

Unless it's a figment of historys imagination, it would appear babyboomers were one of the most vocal and active generations in venting their aggivations and organising riots and protests in order to have a good old moan at what was presented to them on their plate.

Perhaps if the younger people were as vocal they might improve their position. Why do you keep implying that it's boomers that have benefitted most from property prices when gen x has benefitted more is it because you are gen x.

Thrugelmir

caronoel wrote: »

The key point that Graham, and his increasingly small band of doomsters, forget is that these generational gains will eventually be passed onto those in their 20s and 30s today.

With people living longer. I suspect many people are going to be in for shock. As people will utilise much of their capital too see out their days. Rather than live in poverty. Many will outlive their children too.

Cornucopia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well if that's what you appear to believe this is all about, let's look at the generation this article is about.

Presumably that generation was always content with their lot? Never moaned about the way things were? Just got on with things? Worked harder? Took it in their stride and didn't ask for more?

In the curious logic of Forum debating, you now turn your argument on it's head and accept that there is an element of whinging from younger people, but that's okay, because previous generations did the same.

I've no idea how old you are, but this is complete tosh. It's one of the shortcomings of politics in this country that successive generations have become less and less interested. When we were protesting (well, not me, I've never actually marched anywhere ever) it was about basic issues - jobs, right to strike, poll tax.

They were the days of a clear, political divide between Right and Left, Bosses and Unions. Not the namby-pamby champagne socialism we have now.

It's strange therefore, that this is also the generation that held the biggest strikes in the last century. They held some of the biggest protests....poll tax riots anyone?

Unless it's a figment of historys imagination, it would appear babyboomers were one of the most vocal and active generations in venting their aggivations and organising riots and protests in order to have a good old moan at what was presented to them on their plate.

So... Babyboomers - those people who are now aged 51 to 69. You think they were out on the streets protesting the Poll Tax when the 69-year-olds were 43 do you? Seems a bit unlikely.

Graham_Devon

Cornucopia wrote: »

In the curious logic of Forum debating, you now turn your argument on it's head and accept that there is an element of whinging from younger people, but that's okay, because previous generations did the same.

Interesting that you come to the conclusion that because I challenge something a poster wrote - I automatically accept what the poster wrote.

Cornucopia wrote: »

So... Babyboomers - those people who are now aged 51 to 69. You think they were out on the streets protesting the Poll Tax when the 69-year-olds were 43 do you? Seems a bit unlikely.

Well as you said yourself, they range from 51 to 69.

So you'd have an age range of 25-43 when the poll tax riots took place.

Do I think any 25-43 year old took part? Yes. Seems to be plenty of them in this photo....



And this one...



And this one...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

princeofpounds wrote: »

His post isn't about prediction. It's about the rights and wrongs of allowing house prices to rise.

Which is the mistake he, and others like him, have been making for a very long time.

There is no right or wrong to markets rationing goods in scarce supply through price.

It's just the market doing exactly what it is supposed to do, raising prices and rents, until enough people are forced to share housing so as to allocate the limited stock efficiently.

If he really wanted to address that issue he would be lobbying for the million house shortfall to be addressed, for an increase in mortgage availability for the young so builders can build and buyers can buy, for a radical loosening of planning restrictions, etc.

He wouldn't have spent the last 7 years cheering on the credit restriction policies that have reduced new building to 100 year lows, caused rents to rise to new record highs, and forced an entire generation of the young to enrich their landlords instead of themselves.

Graham can have no credibility whatsoever on this topic...

He was warned clearly what would happen and chose to cheer it on anyway...:cool:

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Which is the mistake he, and others like him, have been making for a very long time.

There is no right or wrong to markets rationing goods in scarce supply through price.

It's just the market doing exactly what it is supposed to do, raising prices and rents, until enough people are forced to share housing so as to allocate the limited stock efficiently.

If he really wanted to address that issue he would be lobbying for the million house shortfall to be addressed, for an increase in mortgage availability for the young so builders can build and buyers can buy, for a radical loosening of planning restrictions, etc.

He wouldn't have spent the last 7 years cheering on the credit restriction policies that have reduced new building to 100 year lows, caused rents to rise to new record highs, and forced an entire generation of the young to enrich their landlords instead of themselves.

Graham can have no credibility whatsoever on this topic...

He was warned clearly what would happen and chose to cheer it on anyway...:cool:

If this was all solely about the "market" we wouldn't have FFL, HTB, HTB2, First Buy, Rent to buy, SMI etc

The housing market, currently, is about as far as it can get from a free market.

Your mistake is consistently pretending prices as they are are all the doing of the free market and supply and demand.

Plenty of people, even economists have stated that our answer of fixing the demand side is a recipe for disaster.

I'm not sure I've ever "cheered on" credit restrictions either. I've stated it's part and parcel of boom and bust. I've been against policies which ramp up the demand side without dealing with the supply side. I've stated that credit should be affordable to those who take it out and was totally against 125% loans etc.

But "cheered on" credit restriction.... you've had to use a fair bit of poetic licence there old chap!

shortchanged_2

caronoel wrote: »

Very valid points - but why spoil a good whinge with the truth?

The key point that Graham, and his increasingly small band of doomsters, forget is that these generational gains will eventually be passed onto those in their 20s and 30s today.

No one can take it with them, you know!

No, but the taxman and local councils can!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If this was all solely about the "market" we wouldn't have FFL, HTB, HTB2, First Buy, Rent to buy, SMI etc

Policies that haven't even begun to "fix" the demand side of the equation, as mortgage issuance remains little more than half what it was before the credit crunch.

These policies are a classic "too little too late" government response to repair dysfunctional lending markets so as to enable a more functional housing market.

But they are nowhere near enough yet.

Look, it's really, really simple.

Builders won't build what they can't sell.

And until we once again have widespread credit availability for the young they will continue to be forced to buy houses for their landlords rather than themselves.

It is beyond madness that banks will accept the income stream from renters as sufficient income to service a mortgage for landlords, but will not issue a mortgage on the same terms to the renters directly.

Complete lunacy.

supply and demand.

There is nothing else...

If you waved a magic wand and created several million more houses tomorrow Graham, average house prices would fall.

Simples.;)

Graham_Devon

OK Hamish, think I heard all that several times before

Notice you didn't respond to or disagreed with any of the cheer leading stuff. Which leads me on to question.... what are your thoughts on the actual point of the thread? You just entered it and had a factually incorrect outburst at me.

Any thoughts on the thread? Where the professor is wrong etc?