Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Debt Slaves

New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Debt Slaves

  1. Telegraph seems to be the first to say the housing market needs some sort of goverment support at any sign of HPC, yet actively champion HPI. I wouldn't be surprised if there was another article on the site right now saying buy now for massive gains, can't lose.
  2. Wouldn't falling house prices help the country? The government would have a lower housing benefit bill and wouldn't need to top up as much workers surely if housing was cheaper? hmm.. I guess the main problem is they cater towards their voter base and their donors. The donors get back 10 times what they put in in the sector that they're in, quite a few with interests in property; plus the boomer voter base, their selves (MPs) and bankers.... Guess we fooooked! we still don't seem to have any party on our side (HPC side) we have no voice and aren't catered for.
  3. Banks/landlords were also safe as the furloughed had no problem paying their rents and mortgages. Quite a few had second jobs going. Nobody was forced to move / relocate due to redundancies / job loses. I knew somebody who was leaving their relatives company to become a teacher and they just started the new job as furlough was announced, so the relative just put them on furlough and they continued their new role as they planned but with added furlough for a job they was actively leaving to switch to teaching. Some people did quite well out of the scheme.
  4. Well I would hope the USA and China would be leading the way, they are after all, two of the biggest contributors of global carbon emissions. Our 1.1% contribution doesn't seem to warrant the punitive measures that are being proposed here in the UK, whilst other more polluting countries aren't doing the same. The chart below shows the largest emitting countries in 2018. Taken together, these five countries accounted for 58% of global emissions. The UK ranked 17th with 1.1% of global emissions. China produced 28% and was responsible for almost two-thirds of the growth in emissions since 2000. The chart also looks at the sector of emissions. Electricity plants were the largest source with 27%, followed by transport with 25%. Here the residential sector only includes emissions from fuels burned in homes and not electricity use.
  5. It must have been a typo, 100k added back onto this sh!tehole* yesterday, your very own ex-local authority home on an housing estate for only £425k.... Bargain!!!!.... wait..please somebody slap me, so I wake from this bad dream! *sh!tehole for the price.
  6. Will Michael Gove tax payers save people from bankruptcy as bills to fix fire safety costs start to drop on doormats
  7. A lot of people didn't have to think about moving or selling as their rent / mortgage was more than covered by furlough.
  8. A 1000 days of lobbying to "remain" and keep things the same. Right up until the year of withdrawal the majority of government were hoping for a reversal and somehow the majority of businesses failed to prepare as they hoped the decision would be changed or we would be a vassal country for the EU and stick to everything they do, without any say to reap the rewards for big companies. Also, the covid lockdown didn't help as thousands of HGV tests were cancelled throughout. Does Brexit explain the shortage of HGV drivers in Poland or Germany to name but a few countries experiencing the same issues? UK citizens weren't motivated to be HGV drivers as the pay was poor for them as they were undercut by cheap EU labour, which set the market rate. Big business is happy, foreign workers are happy, UK people were better off on benefits than work 12 hour shifts in an anti-social job for barely more than unemployment if you receive housing benefit etc. Many people should be leaving furlough at the end of the month, hopefully some of these roles will be filled by them. Everyone twists sh!t to their own righteous views, climate change activists here hardly say anything about the most polluting countries (we're a big 1% contributor) and the majority of the world don't care about the slave labour in countries such as China as long as get cheap junk...aw, but at least big business get's to keep staff costs down.
  9. Looks like the media and lobbyists got some of what they wanted. British public have played their part as useful idiots again. Everything is for businesses gain. Cheap labour, cheaper wages = long term HGV UK driver shortages. The foreigners earn more than a living wage for their country. Cheap wage for UK HGV driver = Not worth it because of cost of living here, hence new people not interested and older people leaving. If wages go down, new people won't enter. I guess businesses will be happy to have the number upped... it all about about their bottom line after all!
  10. Sounds like Denmark has the right idea, why do we keep on giving money away? that's one of the reasons people are risking life and limb to pass through perfectly safe countries to get to our shores.... The land of the gold, you'll get a free house, free schooling, NHS and we'll give you some dole money too. If you have a problem, you'll get free legal aid to sue too lmao (not sure if they changed that, sure I heard them talking about changing it a few years ago).
  11. People need a living wage, UK citizens don't have the luxury of earning money in a higher paying country to send back home to comfortably buy a house and raise a family with money earned there. Why do a job if it's not worth your while or you get paid the same or slightly less to stay at home? Companies just want slave labor, with all these vacancies available it looks like the Tories won't have to extend furlough or need to bring in the slave labor / seasonal workers, like fruit pickers holed up in some remote digs in the country side for a month. I heard it takes quite a while to get your benefits back after signing off, is the hassle worth it for a month long, below min wage gig?
  12. Tories, still looking after their own! We're run by Tory boomers, with boomer self interests at heart. I was watching GB News this morning, the rising house prices were mentioned. The younger presenter seemed concerned, the boomer presenter had a beaming smile, saying it was good as she owned and said "you had to get in early".... my response, "congratulations for being 'born' in the right decade, you genius!" I don't think GB News has a catchup as I think that was a good clip to illustrate how much most boomers don't care that younger generations have it much harder than they had it.
  13. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-banks-beating-first-time-buyers-to-new-homes-flnshrfpx And us, the taxpayers will bail the banks out if it goes tits up. They can't lose while regular folks get shafted again. "You will own nothing, and be happy". "I think only a small revolt could change anything now." bobroberts30 post that I thought sums up some of the potential negatives. It seems to me a massive conflict of interest with huge potential for further unethical abuse. As the source of mortgages, they're far too conflicted and powerful to be allowed to landlord. Beyond the obvious bad nature of this, i worry is they will further unethcial leverage possible with their bank powers to gain more property... On the mortgage side: Play silly buggers and last minute retract mortgage offers to gazump buyers. Eliminates potential competition for houses, keeps more renters, possibly grab a cheap property. Become more aggressive in re-posessions, to enlarge their rental portfolio. Complicate remortgaging with an eye to re-posession. Following the example of RBS small business unit and asset stripping scandal, I wouldn't be surprised to find them "helping" homeowners go bust, for further repos. They could cartel up with the other banks to make this even more effective. Probably a 'common code of conduct' and 'anti fraud data sharing' to fig leaf over the legalities This is just the stuff that occured to me giving it a quick think, sure they can come up with far more awful profit making schemes.. They might not do any of this, but they easily could. It's like hiring the poacher as a gamekeeper, has a large element of risk. I'd vote for the first party that comes up with a sensible plan to put a stop to this. In the meantime, going to change banks.
  14. We can't let this happen, 0.3% drop from a 15% annual increase will be catastrophe! Boris and Rishi have got to roll out the latest props to continue to support inequality by intentionally proping up their donors and chums, while making out they're helping the general public.
  15. They don't teach it because they would rather people don't realise what is happening. Got to have enough willing mugs to keep the plates spinning.
  16. We'll probably pay the most for "climate change", whilst producing 1.1 percent of global emissions , well that was in 2018 likely not too different now. Whilst the biggest producers hardly implement any or minimal changes/charges, we will be plundered to save the planet! The chart below shows the largest emitting countries in 2018. Taken together, these five countries accounted for 58% of global emissions. The UK ranked 17th with 1.1% of global emissions. China produced 28% and was responsible for almost two-thirds of the growth in emissions since 2000. The chart also looks at the sector of emissions. Electricity plants were the largest source with 27%, followed by transport with 25%. Here the residential sector only includes emissions from fuels burned in homes and not electricity use. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-and-global-emissions-and-temperature-trends/
  17. Why central bankers keep their cool over rising house prices Soaring cost of home ownership has little effect on official inflation FT Article I’ve posted some comments from the comments section of the article. The article and comments seem free to read after logging in or completing a quick questionnaire. It’s a shame the MSE stopped the Debate House Prices & the Economy section of their website “temporarily” at the beginning of covid. I’m sure it can’t be too hard to get that section going, been down for nearly a year and a half and a lot more people go there than here. Actually, that’s where I found out about here. We need a representative in government, it seems most are cut from the same cloth and couldn’t give two hoots as they or their children are not affected by the housing affordability issue and many already own multiple properties along with their family, friends and party donors. Some comments from the article. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- So central banks remit is to ensure that carrots, coffee cups and H&M clothes don’t increase more than 2% a year as otherwise the population of the country it serves would feel impoverished. In the mean time, housing prices in London have increased 7 to 10 times in 30 years resulting in a uninspiring 3 bed semi in zone 5 trading at £1m+. But fear not, if avocado prices are contained, surely this 250k deposit will stack pretty quickly. It is questionable whether central banks have done any good at all since 2008. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Governments like to spend more than they have, to buy votes. That creates debt which, if interests are high, means politicians have to spend less. Since they don't like that, they love expansionary monetary policy. But it has its side effects like inflating the price of Real Estate. If that was included in the measure of inflation it would mean less leeway for the central bank to execute expansionary monetary policies and it would mean less spending from the government, and politicians don't like it, how would they buy votes if so? So that's the reason, basically political, why housing prices are not included. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- If CBs can't figure out how to measure and include housing inflation then they should close shop and go home. The need to split land and dwelling is not rooted in reality. Most homebuyers don't care for that separation- they simply buy somewhere to live. Even crude measures such as average household income to average house prices point to runaway inflation in housing. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The FT has badly missed on this one. It feels like the FT is “banksplaining” and supporting the CBs rather than taking a critical look at whether the CBs are taking the best course of action, alternatives, etc. Reply Yes- moreover, the purpose of QE is to boost asset prices. The CBs have engineered housing inflation and equity overvaluation and negative real bond yields. This cures viruses, apparently. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Misalignment of incentives. CB are in hock to their asset-owning paymasters. In fact those running CBs are asset-wealthy themselves. Why should they care about anyone else? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point that central banks have no mandate is a poor excuse. They need to be given one. A relative has just sold a property in the Home Counties for just over 70 per cent more than they paid for it about 14 years ago. The house and garden are much the same, save for a little updating and a degree of wear and tear. The “miracle” is that they were able to find 2 prospective buyers to outbid each other on what was a stratospheric price which no reasonable person could be expected to afford. As a result the buyers, I am given to understand, have highly borrowed from a financial institution in order to pay the stratospheric price. What happens if the buyers lose their jobs and cannot afford to repay the interest on the loan? What happens to the health of the financial institution and the economy as a whole if the same issues occur en masse? Does that still remain a non-issue for central bankers? Reply to above from another poster. "What happens if the buyers lose their jobs and cannot afford to repay the interest on the loan?" We already know. Banks will fail, and taxpayers will bail them out. But the important thing to keep in mind is that no one could have seen it coming. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The failure to include house prices in the measurement of inflation has at least one disastrous consequence. It encourages the better off (those who already own houses which have increased massively in monetary value - money for doing nothing ) feel even more insulated from the financial worries and hardships of the less well off. They become even more blase about the rest of inflation - food prices, for example, or the price of anything in which effort has been expended in making it a reality, unlike property. This is a massive misallocation of perception, leading not just to inequity, but to a fundamental flaw in the system of values. Wake up central bankers! Restore balance! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current irrational house prices will only end with social upheaval. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's funny that the 2008 crisis was led by housing inflation and yet central banks are completely ignoring it ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A consumer price index aims to measure consumption, whereas the purchase of a house is the purchase of an asset that is not consumed in the same way as other items" That appears to me to be a basic mistake. I'd say a house is consumed in pretty much the same way as a car or a lawnmower. It steadily degrades without constant maintenance, and even becomes unfashionable without updates. And that's where 30-40% of people's consumption budget goes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article appears to address the concerns raised in an earlier FT article that got the most likes for critiquing central banks. The link is https://www.ft.com/content/a91251bd-83f3-4f9c-be69-efd6bc47b354?commentID=821ff502-2e99-4a9a-89fb-fed7af7ce112. Chris' piece is well-researched for trained economists but misses the elephant in the room - the printing of money in a fiat currency system called QE. These actions directly contribute to dislocations in the economy with massive negative social consequences. Also, he does not question whether the financial system is fit for the future and fair. Most people outside the city bubble think it's a predatory system. Thus a central bank mandate to ensure its stability only heightens the inequality and other tensions. Finally, the accurate measure of inflation in the economy is the level of the money supply. So inflation is indeed much higher in its teens. And it is is a paradox that after each round of QE since 2008, M2 has fallen in the economy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The game is nearly up for Central Banks and their asset inflation game. When a game aimed at making the rich richer becomes mainstream knowledge it has to stop. That moment is very near and this chancellor has accelerated that moment through his reckless stamp duty cuts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- if Consumer Price indices are meant to reflect consumption, then they should be called Consumption Price indices. If they are to reflect the 'general cost of living' or the 'prices consumers face' then they need to include housing costs - here's to CPIH getting more coverage. Do central bankers not own / rent? How can they think consumers' budgets and choices aren't affected by housing costs? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Supply constraints of housing don't explain why prices have risen everywhere around the world. What explains it, is Quantitative Easing, and the fact that there is massive amounts of money that people and investors need to 'park' somewhere. Also stocks and speculative assets like bitcoin have been soaring. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just like monetary easing is a political decision demanded by governments (as the alternative would be economic chaos), housing inflation is also a political decision. Just like a society can "print" money, it can also "print" houses. UK did it from late 1800's until Thatcher - at that point home ownership was already high and then it jumped unnaturaly by giving away council housing for peanuts to get the prole vote. Hence, socialised building had no more political support - most voters owned a home. UK will build again when majority of voters are out of ownership - if they will be allowed to vote at that point. But for the next 10 or 15 years, the majority willl continue to suffer exploitation by the boomers, until they die and/or exchange their realestate for terminal healthcare. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CBs “fretting” about wage increases (reported yesterday) while not giving a damn about house price growth demonstrates that monetary policy is systemically biased against younger generations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some real bright sparks working at these CBs, “It’s not included in the inflation number so therefore it is not part of inflation”. Real geniuses we’ve got working for us. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Housing is the biggest cost to people in lower income brackets. Excluding these costs from inflation is just another wheeze to maintain inequality. Central bankers concerned about house prices? Don't make me laugh. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Politics trumps economics. Logically there ought to be some form of tax to reflect or correct the relative advantage of property owners but how and where do you start? What government wants to alienate its existing (affluent, householder) or its potential (aspirant/starter owner) voter base? Like climate change issues. The struggle between short term individual pain and longer term collective benefit. In the absence of enlightened self interest and/or some sense of prescriptive moral need to act, we remain like frogs in the pot - no one will volunteer to jump out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the series so far FT, it's great to see this topic getting the coverage it deserves! Having saved a significant deposit, I'm now stuck with the dilemma; pay for an "asset" that will technically save me money now, due to mortgage payments being marginally less than rent - it used to be significantly more, or, don't buy this "asset" that is significantly overpriced due to central bank monetary policies and political sentiment, because I'll get significantly screwed when things revert. Unfortunately, it's been 15 years of this, and its only getting worse. Yes, housing is technically an "asset", but it has significant social factors that are more apparent than the price of gold, and other forms of investment. In my opinion, the price of housing really needs to implemented into inflation forecasts. I can't believe it's taken over 20 years, and they've still not found a way to integrate it. If you are struggling for inspiration, go to your local high streets to see the increase in homelessness, rise in food banks, and talk to generation rent (it's not just the "young")....
  18. The reporter seemed interested, the presenters not so much. I'm sure after the reporter finished the guy (I don't know there names) said "I was distracted by the dogs in the background, they were having a scuffle" the lady presenter agreed with him saying "me too". I usually go to the BBC or ITV news but one of them had Olympic coverage instead the other week so thought I'll check out some different news coverage.
  19. I just copied from the above list as you may have skimmed that part. The data shows the price-to-earnings ratio followed by the average house price and average annual earnings: 1. Winchester, South East, 14.0, £630,432, £45,059
  20. You would think that this could only go on for so long logically BUT we're playing in a rigged market that the government has gone to extreme measures to sustain. There doesn't seem to be anybody in government that is against HPI, it looks like they would all like to get the boomers and VI. Labour hasn't really made a big deal about it and sure that they would be happy to get donations from the HPI VI individuals and companies. Donate half a million, get a 100 million pound contract. We need the non voting people to wake up... and the boomers to realise HPI aint helping their children, but for that to happen they need to realise there's a problem and somebody to represent their cause. There's currently nobody, it's crazy. Government comes out with some other underhanded HPI prop under a different guise, where people feel it helps them, where it's really benefitting the landlords and asset owners e.g. mainly the rich. They want to make us the new age slaves by debt. All some of us want is a simple, affordable roof over our heads. Instead we have government supported tulip mania over a few houses as nobody needs to sell due to furlough.
  21. I just saw this being talked about on GBNews and I had a quick google to find some more information. Hopefully more mainstream media report it as well and the public wake up to the madness the government is causing and start making them uncomfortable issuing further props. In the last year, there has been a 10.3% surge in city house prices across the UK Bath and Truro are now among the most unaffordable cities to live in the UK in 2021, new analysis has revealed. The cities ranked joint-third on a list of the top 20 least affordable places in the country - only behind Winchester and Oxford. Average house prices in Truro, Cornwall, now stand at £356,788, according to the report by Halifax, while average earnings are £29,558. In Bath, a house will set you back £476,470 on average, while average annual earnings are £39,508. In total, six South West cities ranked on the list of the least affordable places to live in Britain. There were no West Country locations on the top 20 most affordable cities list. Winchester, in Hampshire, was identified as the UK’s least affordable city, replacing previous table-topper Oxford, with homes now 14 times annual earnings for those living and working there. London was outside the top five least affordable cities for the first time in six years. In the last year, there has been a 10.3% surge in city house prices across the UK. According to Halifax, buying a home in a UK city will now typically set a buyer back by more than eight times average earnings. While the average city house price increased to £287,440, average earnings in these locations increased by only 2.1% annually, to £35,677. After sitting at 5.6 from 2011 to 2013, the house price-to-earnings ratio in UK cities has increased for eight years in a row. In 2020, house prices in cities typically cost around seven and-a-half times a person’s wage. Top 20 least affordable cities in 2021 The data shows the price-to-earnings ratio followed by the average house price and average annual earnings: 1. Winchester, South East, 14.0, £630,432, £45,059 2. Oxford, South East, 12.4, £486,928, £39,220 =3. Truro, South West, 12.1, £356,788, £29,558 =3. Bath, South West, 12.1, £476,470, £39,508 5. Chichester, South East, 10.6, £446,899, £37,352 6. Cambridge, East Anglia, 11.9, £482,300, £40,492 7. Brighton and Hove, South East, 11.6, £449,243, £38,737 8. London, South East, 11.0, £564,695, £51,257 =9. St Albans, South East, 10.2, £604,423, £59,391 =9. Chelmsford, South East, 10.2, £424,690, £41,781 11. Salisbury, South West, 10.0, £392,355, £39,154 12. Exeter, South West, 9.9, £323,554, £32,635 13. Leicester, East Midlands, 9.7, £279,080, £28,725 14. Norwich, East Anglia, 9.4, £306,946, £32,632 15. Bristol, South West, 9.3, £346,902, £37,357 =16. Southampton, South East, 9.0, £310,435, £34,429 =16. Canterbury, South East, 9.0, £365,168, £40,565 =16. Gloucester, South West, 9.0, £287,600, £31,987 19. Worcester, West Midlands, 8.8, £303,132, £34,389 20. Cardiff, Wales, 8.7, £276,851, £31,946 https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/list-uks-least-affordable-places-21272669
  22. I accidentally posted inside the quote above, so I'll repost my comment. I don't completely get it, Bail-in allows the BoE to convert shareholders/investors money instead of public funds? what does that have to do with our savings? as far as I'm aware I'm not a shareholder or investor in my bank?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.