Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Selling up

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Selling up

  1. Of course. I'm just pointing out how interesting it is that (according to the posts here) one can feel very wealthy on 36k with one lifestyle, and not very wealthy on 150k with another lifestyle.
  2. It's odd isn't it. I'm earning 36k and feel very wealthy. But then my preferred lifestyle is hardly extravagant: single, 35, living in a rented terrace house in a not-too-smart Northern town, little Citroen car I've owned for 5 years, no holidays [because I prefer to spend my free time writing music], rarely going out [same reason], and a social circle consisting of younger actors and musicians, amongst whom I'm the wealthy one!
  3. Either this comment is a very silly failure of logic or a subtle ironic jibe against those on this board who accuse the boomers of screwing a generation. Can't quite see which though. (Failure of logic because I can't persuade myself it is reprehensible to allow a sane adult buyer to bid what he pleases for an item.)
  4. If you think a return to the "status quo ante" is desirable then French and German growth is indeed a good thing. If you are hoping that this depression will be severe enough to force fundamental necessary reforms of our financial system and economy (including the bursting of a house price bubble)... AKA short term pain for long term gain... then it ain't such a good thing.
  5. No. The need for a roof over ones head is most certainly not the same as the economic demand for housing. Why? 1. Because the need for a roof over ones head can be met in a multitude of ways other than by purchase of a house. 2. Because economic demand means the desire and ability to purchase an item. Doesn't matter how much it's "needed", if the credit to support current prices is not forthcoming, there is little demand at current prices.
  6. Not so. Have you tried repaying your loan by walking into the bank to offer them the goods you have made? They don't consider that repayment (they may well call it default). You can only repay the loan by persuading somebody else to give you the money to do so. This will be money that has been either borrowed by them, or given to them by someone else who borrowed it... etc etc. From the creation of your debt to its paying-off, it is not necessary for any actual wealth to have been created anywhere, only for money to have changed hands. The only role wealth creation plays in the money-go-round is that it is by creating wealth that you can more easily persuade people to give you their money to repay your loan. If you want to understand money, I strongly believe it is necessary to see that it has NO logical connection to wealth at all. Money debt (I have borrowed money) requires money repayment (I have now obtained money off someone else). Wealth creation is one way to persuade somebody to give you the money to repay your loan. Other ways include speculation, being nice to your parents, gambling or begging. The repayment of a loan does not require wealth creation. Edit: I fully agree with the broader point - which is that money transactions which involve a creation of wealth are better for society than ones which don't. But it is wrong to consider money and wealth as interchangeable, as the author does: a cash debt cannot be paid with wealth.
  7. This is more confusing than enlightening. Cash always means [another person's] debt, whether or not it is used in transactions involving a transfer of wealth. An increase in circulating cash always means an increase in debt, whether or not wealth has been created. In increase in circulating cash without an increase in wealth is inflation [not debt, as the author states].
  8. Don't think that follows. What's your assumption here? That total population = unemployed + employed + sick + too old to work + too young to work? I'm pretty sure that there are other categories not featured in that equation. House-spouse for instance?
  9. I agree with RB. I have been waiting in keen anticipation for today's figures, which are important indicators in confirming or denying the existence of "green shoots". My feeling this morning has indeed also been excitement that we will get some new, fairly authoritative information to help settle a question of vital importance to all of us. I see nothing shameful in this.
  10. Don't get too indignant. I offer two choices: 1. The banks survive by ripping off foolish but asset-rich buyers (or rather asset-rich parents of buyers!) 2. The banks survive by being handed money forcibly removed from you and me by taxation. Since I can't realistically see other options being on the table (banks failing, anyone?), I know which I'd prefer.
  11. Well, all credit to the government and Bank of England. Thanks to their diligent and wise action the biggest bubble in history leading to the biggest financial crisis in history has caused the shortest housing bust in history. Obviously recovery is now well underway. The problem of boom and bust really has been solved. Now it can be boom and boom. Let the good times roll. (Warning: this post may contain irony)
  12. You misunderstand supply. To increase supply does not mean to increase the housing stock. To increase supply means to increase the number of houses being offered for sale. An increase in repossessions, for instance, would achieve that more quickly than any builder could. Edit to add: The government and NHF targets for new housing are arbitrary, in that the underlying assumptions are never publically stated. For instance: The government is very fond of saying, for instance that "lack of affordability" means that new houses should be built, but never acknowledges the obvious logical consequence: IE building new houses can only improve affordibility if it lowers house prices. So what average house price would the government consider indicates that houses are affordable? And if they hope to cause a drop in prices by building new property, why are they not publically stating "lower house prices" as an objective? In fact why are their other policies trying to raise house prices? The government stance is entirely self-contradictory. I believe that the low levels of street homelessness in this country indicate that there is enough accomodation for the population, and no more is needed at present. The million-dollar political question is how ownership of this accomodation is distributed. But that is a question to be resolved by white paper and debating chamber, not by JCB diggers.
  13. 2 points. 1. Since almost half the 18-21 age group are students, I suggest that it is unhelpful to make such distinctions between students and non-students. Maybe in the days when only the top 10% went from Eton to university, it was true that to be a student was to demonstrate a "fine moral character". I doubt it is so now. Also I find it odd that in one breath you can claim that students are better behaved than non-students and then call the other posters "elitist"! 2. I don't think they're getting bile for being students. They're getting bile for being 18-21, IE likely to enjoy partying and staying up late, likely not to care too much about tidying the garden. It's not an elitist thing, just a simple age-related observation.
  14. Bought a house needing some work in 2003, paid asking price, overpaid with hindsight. Did work, lived there. Became suspicious in 2006 that the housing market seemed a little too good to be true. Googled "house price crash", literally. Found the site autumn 06. By Jan 07 had STR. I've only ever been a homeowner for 4 years, 03-07, and by a combination of overpaying and renovating to a specification too high for the street, failed to make any profit during 4 bubble years. (Wasn't in it for the profit of course though.) I almost exactly broke even, so what I call my STR fund didn't really come from my STR activity at all. Now about to move to London to start masters degree, so will be renting at least another year. Who knows after that?
  15. Agreed. The problem is, most supporters of house price inflation fail to acknowledge that house price movements are a zero sum game. Rising prices benefit established owners and reduce quality of life of non-owners and new owners. Falling prices benefit non-owners and hurt estabished owners and (particularly) new owners. I know that for me - and all those like me - to benefit, house prices would need to be lower. Some would be helped, some would be hurt, just as if prices remained at current levels or rose. There is no "neutral" position. Someone wins, someone loses. All that is at issue is "who?"
  16. Agreed. On rare occasions I've tried to negotiate with retailers. When I'm getting nowhere, I've always got very good results by asking to discuss with the boss. And not aggressively but very politely "You may well be right that your policy won't allow me to return this item now, but I'd still like to discuss it with your boss... yes, I realise he or she will probably tell me the same. But all the same..." etc etc. On the other hand, my lawyer brother gets equally good results by going tight lipped and shooting furious looks around the shop! Not my style though, I'm a softie.
  17. Don't think that's accurate. I'm no accountant but surely debt refers to cashflow, gain or loss refers to balance sheet? EG I borrow £200B from NatWest for home improvements. I now have £200B in my current account and a debt of £200B - IE no gain nor loss.
  18. Good poll. Who the **** is saving 5k per month? I take my hat off.
  19. I feel very ambivalent towards my profession. Unlike some, I think we provide a good service. Yes, British GPs err on the side of under-diagnosis and under-treatment, but that to me is no worse than erring on the side of over-diagnosis and over-treatment. In fact on a social level it may be preferable. But access is a big problem. There are not enough of us willing to work enough hours to provide the ease of access that patients want. And payment is the biggest problem. To some extent the less a practice spends on providing services, the more the partners take home. Payment-by-results has changed this a bit, but it is too easy to "game" the system. And any system will be easy to "game", since we are generally fairly intelligent and financially-minded. Having said all that I still believe that British general practice is the least worst model for primary care.
  20. So they're going to give us extra cash to do the extra work... but still pay us for any routine work that we don't have time to do? I am frequently embarrassed by my profession's money-grabbing ability. Today once more.
  21. Me too, though I couldn't help bearing in mind the uselessness of their record on prediction, something I wish the BBC had alluded to.
  22. Frank Field is great. I'd love to see him in charge of the benefits system.
  • 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.