Inflation is running at twice the official rate

EdInvestor

Generali wrote: »

Longer term, I also think that house prices will fall due mostly to baby boomers selling up to top up inadequate pensions.

More likely the prices of bigger houses will fall and smaller properties will rise as babyboomers downsize to top up their pensions IMHO.

It's also interesting to note a recent growing trend in "retirement divorces" , apparently instigated by wives who can't cope with having him at home all day. Maybe the "pension sharing" legislation also has something to do with that?

That would also increase demand for smaller homes.It's certainly a terrible time to be an FTB.

fc123

teabelly wrote: »

House prices have been too cheap for too long and the HPI of recent years is a sign that they are returning to historical levels of being too expensive for the average person. More than 50% owner occupation has only been around since the 60s. In the 1930s it was 90% rented, 10% owner occupied. The massive house building of the 1960s has distorted the market and encouraged owner occupation when the natural state for us is to be like the rest of Europe and mostly rent. It all depends on what you think the natural state is and when you think we are returning to

My dad holds this view....he's pretty smart being one of the countries top academics (and I only post that to affirm the opinion...obviously the genes didn't pass down; they skipped a generation...my son is a smart !!!!! and it's painful).
He believes that homeownership as 'normal' is going to be a trend that reverses.
Welcome back to the world of serfs etc.

fc123

epz wrote: »

you do realise we live in a democracy, planning and bank lending dictate house prices, if you try and turn people into a surf class they are not stupid enough to just sit back and take it.

.

but they may have no other options

WTF?_2

epz wrote: »

you do realise we live in a democracy, planning and bank lending dictate house prices, if you try and turn people into a surf class they are not stupid enough to just sit back and take it.

Why not? They've already been stupid enough to agree to all sorts of things like repressive new laws and losses of civil liberties.

Given that when it comes to economics most people these days have no ideas of compound interest rates, inflation, laws of supply and demand etc. and the government are currently bailing the banks out with the taxpayer underwriting the risk and inflation likely to be the result, it's not hard to see people being manipulated even more.

fc123

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Why not? They've already been stupid enough to agree to all sorts of things like repressive new laws and losses of civil liberties.

Given that when it comes to economics most people these days have no ideas of compound interest rates, inflation, laws of supply and demand etc. and the government are currently bailing the banks out with the taxpayer underwriting the risk and inflation likely to be the result, it's not hard to see people being manipulated even more.

The majority are passive, like a well kept pet.
I blame telly, comfy sofas and diet.

epz_2

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Why not? They've already been stupid enough to agree to all sorts of things like repressive new laws and losses of civil liberties.

Given that when it comes to economics most people these days have no ideas of compound interest rates, inflation, laws of supply and demand etc. and the government are currently bailing the banks out with the taxpayer underwriting the risk and inflation likely to be the result, it's not hard to see people being manipulated even more.

repressive laws don't really affect anyone, at least nobody important or that the majority of the population will know.

tell people you are going to prevent them from getting something they want and they soon get upset, just look at the way the government dropped the petrol tax rise when people started getting angry.

people dont need to be well informed or even right, just p!ssed at the government enough for them to think they will lose their jobs.

ManAtHome

teabelly wrote: »

when the natural state for us is to be like the rest of Europe and mostly rent.

Pretty sure renting is a northern Europe thing - certainly Greece has a higher home-ownership percentage than the UK, and I'm pretty sure I read a couple of years ago that ownership in Italy, Spain, and Portugal was also high (had a quick google, but will have to come with some more inventive phrases - any offers welcome...).

Maybe we'll go back to people renting, partying, getting ratted etc late teens and twenties before being "forced" to go respectable and get on the ladder.

EdInvestor

Around 70% owner occupation is the usual rate for the English speaking countries (UK US,Aus, Canada) etc these days .Southern Europe (Spain Italy Greece) is more like 80% (IIRC this comes from their closer proximity to the old agricultural society where farming families own land ). France is at around 60% and Germany at 50% .Germany has punitively expensive mortgages and quality but cheap rental property.

Before the 1970s UK owner occupation was at the 50% level, and before WW2 it was around 30%.At the turn of the century only 10% owned their own home, which is presumably where the saying "an Engliushman's home is his castle" came from, as the only people rich enough to own a home had a castle, everyone else was a serf.:D

ianmr65

epz wrote: »

if you try and turn people into a surf class they are not stupid enough to just sit back and take it.

woah there musky...

the minimum wage in this country is £5.50 an hour, or about £8k per year and the average wage is around £23k. To get a £23k average millions of people are earning £15k or less. We already have a serf class.

It's anyone earning anywhere between the £8k and £15k.

WTF?_2

epz wrote: »

repressive laws don't really affect anyone, at least nobody important or that the majority of the population will know.

The law and loss of civil liberties affects everyone!

The fact that people would think that some repressive law is OK because 'it won't affect them' is a sign of just how easy to manipulate they are and a sad state of how vulnerable our society is to taking a rather nasty turn towards authoritarianism.

Take the couple who were spied upon for a couple of weeks by the local authority because it was suspected their primary residence wasn't in the school catchment area. The law used to do this was introduced as an anti-terrorism law. The loss of civil liberties was sold to a gullible public as being necessary to stop those ill-defined psycho terrorists hiding behind every corner from supposedly killing all our kids or something.

Yet surprise, surprise - a law sold to people on a largely manufactured fear of terrorism gets used for something as trivial as 'parents possibly trying to cheat the school catchment scheme'.

tell people you are going to prevent them from getting something they want and they soon get upset, just look at the way the government dropped the petrol tax rise when people started getting angry.

Yeah, that really worked well didn't it :rotfl: What price was petrol at the time - 88p a litre or something?

What price is it now?

people dont need to be well informed or even right, just p!ssed at the government enough for them to think they will lose their jobs.

The lesson of history (proven recently) is that people just need to be scared and they'll pretty much agree to anything.

This is a generation that thinks that an average person borrowing over a hundred of thousands of pounds and placing himself in virtual debt-slavery to buy a shoebox is a good thing.

Frankly I think most of the public would believe anything that television and the Sun tells them to belive.