Aaah - so it just comes down to 'blaming the boomers'. Should have guessed.
ANYONE when given a windfall like being able to buy the house they had been renting for years at a knock down price is going to take it, they'd be a fool not to. Even the supposedly virtuous 'post boomer' generation.
Get it into your head - you have not been disenfranchised by a uniquely greedy and amoral generation of 'boomers'. Human nature ran it's course resulting in a boom (one of many throughout history) which benefited people who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately for you and a lot of other people you weren't. That's what's known as 'bad luck', not some sort of organised disenfranchisement by the previous generation.
The idea that this is somehow "good luck" and just the fates aligning with nebulous fluctuations in an undefinable economic cycle is nonsense. The crisis we are living in has actors, actions, events creating cause and effect. All of which are quite easy to comprehend. That your argument is so weak is given away by the fact you have to resort to trying to put words in my mouth. I never said it was an organized conspiracy, it was a group of people who couldn't see past their own greed and took the bribe being offered by another group wanting to be re-elected.
This is not I hasten to add the entire problem. But an important part of it.
If you want to fix a problem you have to understand the root causes. In the airline business if a plane comes down the thing is picked over meticulously until the cause is established, that sort of diligence seems to be an inconvenience in your world.
I don't really
blame the boomers. My remark about them was flippant. Whereas your justification, as I said before and which you've repeated, is the same as that used by looters.
As you're so keen on repeating yourself I'll do the same, there are people who didn't buy their council houses who aren't, as you would like to claim, stupid. In fact it was short sighted and stupid thinking that drove those buying.
As for the number of years people had been renting, so what? The contracts were entered into freely. It was a house to rent. Were the conditions of the contracts not clear when they signed the tenancies? A rented house for life or as long as you want, with a few minor rules attached isn't good enough for some. How about we extend the right to buy then to long term private tenants surely the type of housing isn't relevant to a right to buy?
Maybe we should adopt this philosophy in all walks of life. Lost a load of dough betting on the horses? Maybe we could have a government scheme to pay you back 50% of your losses in gold bars.
The right to buy doesn't just punish the next generation it traps people who never lived in council housing and never wanted to live in it. The mechanism contributes to rising house prices across the board. Some, in the short term, will benefit from this, but in the long term as prices rise more and more people are priced out. Starting at the bottom and working it's way up. My argument is that we had a system that worked reasonably well until it was hijacked by ideologues. Then another set of ideologues in the form of New Labour poured fuel on the fire with their relaxation of lending requirements.
Edited by Control, 18 March 2012 - 04:44 PM.