London increased by 12.4% in 2015

Samsonite1

It does seem like such a tricky subject. Firstly, we know that supply and demand are what drive prices up in any business.

For many people buying properties in and around London, there is no issue with rising house prices. There are enough people wealthy enough to keep the demand high and so prices can keep increasing. In theory there will be a tipping point where the demand reduces due to not enough people being able to afford what is available, but in reality that is hard to hit because there are so many wealthy investors who can keep buying properties and London is a very attractive proposition as a city for anyone in the world.

Even if we build many new properties, do we know if they will not got snapped up by investors? Building houses takes a long time and billionaires can buy them a lot quicker than they can be built, so I am not sure that it is possible to fill the "demand".

I wonder what would happen if the number of properties that you could own was limited or some increasingly stringent rules (or a ladder of taxes) were introduced. I do not actually agree with the 3% stamp duty for second homes because 2 houses does not make you a filthy rich investor, but whatever, haters will be haters. I know that in London, wealthy individuals buy a lot of property. I met someone a few years ago that bought a whole building for £45m to turn into flats. In my opinion, these people drive up the property prices more than any "normal" individual could.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

The "socio-economic response" is either the state (which makes things worse) or the sum of individuals' actions.

If someone thinks prices are too high, you can either sell for what you think they should be, or not sell and accept that you actually agree with these values but want to signal a bit of virtue. Alternatively, demand that other people be taxed.

Totally unfettered free markets......yep the solution to all our ills! Utter tosh! What about the next generation. Rent controls now!:T

Jason74

westernpromise wrote: »

It's a precise mirror of the post I'm responding to, Graham. Property prices are too high, boo hoo; but I'm not about to do anything about it by selling my own property at what it should sell for, no way. I need to sell my property at these prices. It's other people's houses that are too expensive and need to become cheaper. What are They going to do about it? What aren't They making other people's houses cheaper?

In the same way, if other people would get off the ʎpoolq road, there would be no traffic jams; there would just be me.

Jason therefore actually agrees with the level of prices that he finds so objectionable.

What a silly post. I certainly don't "agree" with the current level of property prices in any kind of sense of seeing them as desirable. What I of do of course do, is acknowledge those prices as the current reality.

That reality of course is that from a perspective of what is socially desirable, all London property is much too expensive, mine included. Now of course, in terms of selling my own property, well I'm not currently doing that as I'm busy living in it. So in that sense its value is irrelevant ,as it's not available on the marketplace. If I were to sell it, it needs to sell for a figure that will enable me to make a move up in my local market. If I can't afford to make a move up in my local market, then my property goes back to being unavailable (as I need it to live in) and it's value is irrelevant again. It's not complicated, and has nothing to do with what I believe in. For an intelligent person to suggest otherwise is trolling, pure and simple.

As Clapton rightly points out (and given the amount that Clapton and I disagree on, if we're on the same side of an argument it's probably because it's pretty much unarguably correct) , this issue can't be solved by the kind of actions you're talking about. Like most big structural social problems, it needs coordinated action from government to address the causes. Now you may find that objectionable , but that is nonetheless what is needed.

You believe that " The state has no answers. The state's acts are the problem", but when it comes to these kind of issues, the "state" is the only body that can implement the answers. Lets not forget that it was "the state" that brought us free education and the NHS, and we'd certainly be a lot worse off without those. Likewise, we now need much more government involvement in housing than has previously been the case, as current prices in the capital are proof that the current situation isn't working.

wotsthat

Jason74 wrote: »

What a silly post. I certainly don't "agree" with the current level of property prices in any kind of sense of seeing them as desirable. What I of do of course do, is acknowledge those prices as the current reality.

That reality of course is that from a perspective of what is socially desirable, all London property is much too expensive, mine included. Now of course, in terms of selling my own property, well I'm not currently doing that as I'm busy living in it. So in that sense its value is irrelevant ,as it's not available on the marketplace. If I were to sell it, it needs to sell for a figure that will enable me to make a move up in my local market. If I can't afford to make a move up in my local market, then my property goes back to being unavailable (as I need it to live in) and it's value is irrelevant again. It's not complicated, and has nothing to do with what I believe in. For an intelligent person to suggest otherwise is trolling, pure and simple.

As Clapton rightly points out (and given the amount that Clapton and I disagree on, if we're on the same side of an argument it's probably because it's pretty much unarguably correct) , this issue can't be solved by the kind of actions you're talking about. Like most big structural social problems, it needs coordinated action from government to address the causes. Now you may find that objectionable , but that is nonetheless what is needed.

You believe that " The state has no answers. The state's acts are the problem", but when it comes to these kind of issues, the "state" is the only body that can implement the answers. Lets not forget that it was "the state" that brought us free education and the NHS, and we'd certainly be a lot worse off without those. Likewise, we now need much more government involvement in housing than has previously been the case, as current prices in the capital are proof that the current situation isn't working.

Yes, you're behaving exactly the same as anyone else would.

I find it somewhat annoying that some people think they're morally superior because of what they say rather than what they do.

You think London prices are socially undesirable yet have bought in at those prices and will sell at those prices too. So how socially undesirable are high London prices - I assume not very.

System

I call that Percy syndrome.

TheeMaskedTurnip

I call it putting your money where your mouth is. If you complain about high house prices then start the ball rolling and sell yours for its 2002 price. Otherwise put a sock in it.

Jason74

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, you're behaving exactly the same as anyone else would.

I find it somewhat annoying that some people think they're morally superior because of what they say rather than what they do.

You think London prices are socially undesirable yet have bought in at those prices and will sell at those prices too. So how socially undesirable are high London prices - I assume not very.

Well as an aside, I haven't bought in at those prices as I haven't bought a property since 2002, but I acknowledge that's splitting hairs somewhat as I doubtless will "buy and sell at those prices" in the future. But that's not a comment on the desirability or otherwise of price levels, it's accepting of the reality if I want to live in London.

That doesn't change the fact that price levels are crazy, and that the craziness is impacting on a lot of people's life chances. It's the responsibility of Government at all levels to better address the situation than they are doing at present. And much as you hate the idea, a key part of that must be large scale building of social housing to address the failure in the market.

mwpt

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes, you're behaving exactly the same as anyone else would.

I find it somewhat annoying that some people think they're morally superior because of what they say rather than what they do.

You think London prices are socially undesirable yet have bought in at those prices and will sell at those prices too. So how socially undesirable are high London prices - I assume not very.

A totally nonsensical argument. It's like saying that children who object against child labour but have to partake in the system because their family needs food are morally wrong to do so.

People need to live in a home, they have no choice but to partake in the system in some form. They could rent at high prices or buy at high prices.

mwpt

TheeMaskedTurnip wrote: »

I call it putting your money where your mouth is. If you complain about high house prices then start the ball rolling and sell yours for its 2002 price. Otherwise put a sock in it.

Oh, look here. A real life moderator of the forum. Thank you for telling us how we are allowed to think and post. I will give your opinion due consideration.

mwpt

The group thought clones are out in full force today.