Is it possible to become a millionaire (or near to) through investments?

BananaRepublic

Glen_Clark wrote: »

So you find increased hospital admissions for malnutrition, evictions, and homelessness, to be 'laugh out loud funny.'

No, I find your extreme political rants hilarious. They are utter nonsense.

grey_gym_sock

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Osborne's failure to bring the deficit down as quickly as wanted this year is nothing to do with an agenda, and everything to do with the slowdown in China. As you know, that country has a huge problem with debt, due to the government stimulating growth, and the government is trying to deflate the debt bubble gradually.

osborne has been a failure for 6 years. most of the UK population is poorer, which is almost the definition of failure for the chancellor.

but more recently, what effect does china's slowdown have on the UK economy (as distinct from on the UK stock market)? it lowers commodity prices, which hurt the UK's extractive industries, but helps all other sectors of the economy by lowering their costs. overall, it should be positive.

if we have weak demand in the UK - which we do - that's nothing to do with china: it's because households are over-burdened with high levels of debt, which have barely fell since the GFC. we are trapped in the early stages of debt deflation (japan hasn't escaped from debt deflation after over 20 years). some of those debts need to be written down. also, government spending could be used to increased to make up for lack of demand in the private sector (instead of the austerity policy, which is reducing public-sector demand at the same time that private-sector demand is weak).

the UK (and other) stock markets - apart from the extractive industries sectors: it's more obvious why they have fallen - may have been spooked by china (though one should always take explanations of why the markets have fallen/risen with a large pinch of salt). but market sentiment can change for apparently trivial reasons - the market is a bit of a manic-depressive. perhaps this is just a hiccup which the market will get over, or perhaps it's just starting to pay proper attention to some of the underlying negative factors (such as weak demand) which have been ignored in the bull market.

to get almost back on topic, i don't have a strong opinion on where the market is going from here. happy to keep most of my really long-term capital invested in shares, but with the emphasis on more defensive sectors, which should do OK even is the economy is so-so.

grey_gym_sock

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Yes but that would be a genuine increase in GDP, not a fake increase in GDP like Osborne's Socialism for Landlords housing market interventions to push up rents of existing properties, vastly boosting the wealth of the landed aristocracy at her expense of the productive side of the economy - and vastly increasing the National Debt.

so do you think building more social housing is a good idea, or is that too socialist for you?

(careful how you answer - banana republic may be reading this )

Glen_Clark

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

so do you think building more social housing is a good idea, or is that too socialist for you?

(careful how you answer - banana republic may be reading this )

Nooooo - Government interference in the housing market is the problem not the solution!
If you build subsidised housing deciding who gets it could be as big a recipe for corruption as the planning system!
I believe in the free market - sack the planning committies and take planning decisions away from local Nimbys, let the builders build, increase the housing supply and bring property prices back into proportion to the rest of the economy - for everybody, not just the priveleged few buyers who are given social housing.
Without the burden of high rents it may not be too late for a genuine economc recovery.

Glen_Clark

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

osborne has been a failure for 6 years. most of the UK population is poorer, which is almost the definition of failure for the chancellor.

True, but the 1% is far richer, and they control the media which presents Osborne as a success.

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

government spending could be used to increased to make up for lack of demand in the private sector (instead of the austerity policy, which is reducing public-sector demand at the same time that private-sector demand is weak).

Well the Government is spending plenty, but on the wrong things like the so called 'Help to Buy' and housing benefit which is inflating property prices to benefit of their 1% at the expense of the rest of the economy. Under the Royal Prerogative granted to him by Her Unelected Majesty the Queen (who is probably the biggest beneficiary of Osborne's housing market subsidies), Cameron has just sent another 40 of their stooges to the House of Lords, giving us the biggest Government in the world. Such people tend to spend it on foreign cruises and villas which don't benefit the home economy. Wheras the poor who it is taken from in rent and taxes are more likely to have spent it in the UK, boosting the UK economy.

jamesd

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

most of the UK population is poorer

Compared to say Do you feel 20% richer than last year? Average UK household wealth soars by almost £50k in sharpest increase since records began? Which numbers are you using?

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

which is almost the definition of failure for the chancellor.

A chancellor also gets to be judged buy things like change in public sector borrowing trend, economic growth and unemployment rate. Reduced public sector spending would naturally reduce household income levels but many would think that it's a good choice to reduce the public sector borrowing. And of course the UK leads the OECD in economic growth.

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

households are over-burdened with high levels of debt, which have barely fell since the GFC

Would you be meaning total household debt or debt per household? Because of the increase in the number of households one has been going up while the other has been going down.

Glen_Clark

jamesd wrote: »

Compared to say Do you feel 20% richer than last year? Average UK household wealth soars by almost £50k in sharpest increase since records began? Which numbers are you using?

My house price has risen, so techincally my household wealth has risen, but I am no better off because I can't sell it as I need it to live in. I'm actually worse off as I would have to pay tyhe Estate agent more in commission if I needed to move to another overpriced property. People who have benefitted most are the likes of the Duke of Westminster, whose inherited wealth is reportedly now over £75bn after his inherited London property portfolio has apparently doubled in Capital value, plus astronomical rents, in 10 years. How does that affect your average figures?

bowlhead99

Glen_Clark wrote: »

My house price has risen, so techincally my household wealth has risen, but I am no better off because I can't sell it as I need it to live in. I'm actually worse off as I would have to pay tyhe Estate agent more in commission if I needed to move to another overpriced property.

Well, if someone will pay you more for what you have than they previously would, that sounds like you are in a better position than others and that your relative wealth together with absolute wealth has increased. If you wanted to 'cash in', you could move to a smaller overpriced property, and bank the increased differential which has been created as part of the rise. Or move to a different part of the country. Or to a different country where politicians behave more in line with your own philosophy on how to run a country?

Or, you could say that your wealth generation is fake because you don't want to cash in your house and shares and other assets and continue to sit there moaning to the internet that billionaires are allowed to exist and that GDP and CPI is fiddled in your opinion and the queen doesn't pay council tax.

Malthusian

My house price has risen, so techincally my household wealth has risen, but I am no better off because I can't sell it as I need it to live in.

Unless this is the only house in the entire world that you can possibly live in, you are better off.

I'm actually worse off as I would have to pay tyhe Estate agent more in commission if I needed to move to another overpriced property.

Utterly bonkers. "My investment bond has risen by £10,000 but I'm actually worse off because it charges a 1% exit fee and the exit fee's gone up by £100."

People who have benefitted most are the likes of the Duke of Westminster, whose inherited wealth is reportedly now over £75bn after his inherited London property portfolio has apparently doubled in Capital value, plus astronomical rents, in 10 years.

No, by your own logic he's the most miserable person in the entire country. Imagine the estate agents' fees and stamp duty he'd have to pay to sell £75bn worth of property!

mapk

Malthusian wrote: »

Unless this is the only house in the entire world that you can possibly live in, you are better off.

I've got a tent for sale if anyone wants to realise a profit on their bricks.

Utterly bonkers. "My investment bond has risen by £10,000 but I'm actually worse off because it charges a 1% exit fee and the exit fee's gone up by £100."



No, by your own logic he's the most miserable person in the entire country. Imagine the estate agents' fees and stamp duty he'd have to pay to sell £75bn worth of property!

Not to mention the CGT on properties number 2, 3, 4... :rotfl: