Lunatic London Property market starting to turn?

westernpromise

AG47 wrote: »

Rents an asking prices continue he to fall

Exactly wrong

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/indexofprivatehousingrentalprices/may2017

London private rental prices grew by 1.3% in the 12 months to May 2017, 0.5 percentage points below the Great Britain 12-month growth rate.

davilown

Down on the South coast in my little area there has definitely been a shift in the market with a lot more homes being reduced (according to the updated properties email I get from rightmove). whether this is a price shift is not yet identifiable but the buyers are being a lot more picky about what they see as an appropriate price v the price the vendor things their house is worth.
The one exceptions are those properties put to market at the 'right' price sell stc within a week.

davilown

padington wrote: »

The big effect Brexit will have on immigration will be from the effect of ruining an economy and the consenquntial outcomes that will entail.

Tearing up 40 years of well fought negotiation which brought us from being the poor Man of Europe to the worlds 5th biggest economy is a terrible act of self harm.

Remove 'well fought negotiation' and replace with Compromise?

westernpromise

davilown wrote: »

Down on the South coast in my little area there has definitely been a shift in the market with a lot more homes being reduced (according to the updated properties email I get from rightmove). whether this is a price shift is not yet identifiable but the buyers are being a lot more picky about what they see as an appropriate price v the price the vendor things their house is worth.
The one exceptions are those properties put to market at the 'right' price sell stc within a week.

What have asking prices to do with anything?

By the way, I don't understand your signature. In what sense is a mortgage a debt? It's simply a way to make a bulk purchase of a lifetime's supply of housing. If you didn't have one you'd instead owe a lifetime's cost of rent, which is a much bigger number. One lasts 25 years at a cost fixed today, the other lasts forever and inflates. So shouldn't you show your housing cost as the net gain between owning versus renting?

I don't understand people who object to the idea of having a mortgage "hanging over their head" but who don't consider that the alternative is an even bigger quantum of rental debt hanging over their head.

economic

westernpromise wrote: »

What have asking prices to do with anything?

By the way, I don't understand your signature. In what sense is a mortgage a debt? It's simply a way to make a bulk purchase of a lifetime's supply of housing. If you didn't have one you'd instead owe a lifetime's cost of rent, which is a much bigger number. One lasts 25 years at a cost fixed today, the other lasts forever and inflates. So shouldn't you show your housing cost as the net gain between owning versus renting?

I don't understand people who object to the idea of having a mortgage "hanging over their head" but who don't consider that the alternative is an even bigger quantum of rental debt hanging over their head.

exactly. with mortgage rates this low, its a no brainer to borrow and invest the proceeds. i am certainly taking my time paying off my mortgage and im glad i released equity last year!

Filo25

economic wrote: »

uk used to be the most powerful nation in the world prior to WW1. we didnt need an EU then and we certainly dont need to be part of what looks like a very dodgy and corrupt EU now.

An argument that might hold more water if we were still the most powerful nation in the world just before we joined the EU.

economic

Filo25 wrote: »

An argument that might hold more water if we were still the most powerful nation in the world just before we joined the EU.

what i am trying to say is that since we had previously been the worlds most powerful nation without being part of the EU, it is certainly possible that we dont need the EU to be a strong country economically.

the other thing is what sort of country do we want to be? a powerful one (like the US)? or just a strong one ecoomically (in other words a "rich" nation)?

clearly to become a powerful one, it will be a struggle given US, and maybe to stand a chance its probably a reason to be part of the EU. but surely its first and foremost better to strive to be a rich nation such that living standards for most of the population is better then other nations? we certainly dont need the EU for that to occur.

padington

economic wrote: »

what i am trying to say is that since we had previously been the worlds most powerful nation without being part of the EU, it is certainly possible that we dont need the EU to be a strong country economically.

the other thing is what sort of country do we want to be? a powerful one (like the US)? or just a strong one ecoomically (in other words a "rich" nation)?

clearly to become a powerful one, it will be a struggle given US, and maybe to stand a chance its probably a reason to be part of the EU. but surely its first and foremost better to strive to be a rich nation such that living standards for most of the population is better then other nations? we certainly dont need the EU for that to occur.

We don't have an empire anymore, when did you miss the memo? We lost it fighting wars we couldn't afford. To assess the worth of something you assess the beginning and end, not start at a point back in history that is irrelevant to that which you wish to assess.

We started the sick man of Europe and before we asked to leave we were the worlds fifth biggest economy.

Fact.

However the truth is, we've really been struggling ever since Hitler but Europe was a gift and it could be worse. Read this ...
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/12/16/sick-man-europe-britain-and-nonsensical-eu-referendum.html

We really need to accept the glory days are long gone and it's a lie they will ever return. We did keep one lasting post empire special power though which was the trust in the Bank of England and the pound backed by an educated, pragmatic and wise body of people and our reputation as a civilised new modern society.

We are ruining that.

Thrugelmir

economic wrote: »

what i am trying to say is that since we had previously been the worlds most powerful nation without being part of the EU, it is certainly possible that we dont need the EU to be a strong country economically.

The British Empire was a major factor. Not forgetting the East India Company (founded 1600) either. .

padington

economic wrote: »

what i am trying to say is that since we had previously been the worlds most powerful nation without being part of the EU, it is certainly possible that we dont need the EU to be a strong country economically.

the other thing is what sort of country do we want to be? a powerful one (like the US)? or just a strong one ecoomically (in other words a "rich" nation)?

clearly to become a powerful one, it will be a struggle given US, and maybe to stand a chance its probably a reason to be part of the EU. but surely its first and foremost better to strive to be a rich nation such that living standards for most of the population is better then other nations? we certainly dont need the EU for that to occur.

When you say strong economically, do you mean ending enforced annual leave, lunch breaks, maternity pay, health and safety legislation, minimum wages and further eroding workers rights to raise wages generally ?