VacantPossession Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 This would be a step in the wrong direction IMO. The point is a tenant and a landlord can never have equal status and no amount of government regulation or long term assured tenancies can alter the fact that one person is paying another for something that would be free if the landlord wasn't there in the first place. That is complete nonsense. Of course it wouldn't be free...and shouldn't be. It is an inevitable expense. Please read my post more carefully. It described the difference NOT between landlord and tenant, but between two HOUSEHOLDERS who are paying for their shelter through different methods. I wasn't at any point referring to landlords but to owner occupiers and renting occupiers. Essentially they are the same, in the sense that they are both paying for the right to occupy a dwelling. The status I referred to is a SOCIAL status, meaning the attitude of one group of people towards another. What is it about the desire to equalise a social status based on the method of how you pay for shelter that is "a step in the wrong direction"? VP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Authoritarian Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 That is complete nonsense. Of course it wouldn't be free...and shouldn't be. It is an inevitable expense. Please read my post more carefully. It described the difference NOT between landlord and tenant, but between two HOUSEHOLDERS who are paying for their shelter through different methods. I wasn't at any point referring to landlords but to owner occupiers and renting occupiers. Essentially they are the same, in the sense that they are both paying for the right to occupy a dwelling.The status I referred to is a SOCIAL status, meaning the attitude of one group of people towards another. What is it about the desire to equalise a social status based on the method of how you pay for shelter that is "a step in the wrong direction"? VP Well unless you're developing a system of mind control I don't know how you're going to change the thoughts that one person has of another. Perhaps you're going to campaign for a 'be nice to renters week' or somesuch. The step in the wrong direction bit means that you're essentially seeking to normalise a process that is both unnatural and the cause of the financial chaos that's been unleashed. Owner occupiers and renters aren't essentially the same because only the owner occupiers can charge for access to their private resource: the renters will always have to pay as there's no way of escaping the costs of housing. To truly equalise the two sets of people would require the financial benefits of occupying certain spaces to be taken back into the public purse: this would mean taxing the owners to stop run away house prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thucydides Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) A good post by the OP. In my view, expensive land is the problem now, but it is not where the problem starts. The cause of all this is overly-restrictive planning laws and certain governments not releasing enough land for new builds. This makes land a premium far more than it need be, and when coupled with banks that will lend anything to anyone, you get an upward spiral of house prices. In other words, the British Government is to blame, or the Australian State Governments which run similarly restrictive policies and cause shortages in housing stock. The biggest housing bubbles occur in places like UK or Australia, but not so much in US or Canada where they have more relaxed planning laws and land is issued for building more easily. Sure, there are bubbles in NA - look at CA or SW BC in Canada - but these are "natural" bubbles caused by factors such as desirability for the most part. Government-induced bubbles like the ones in UK/Aus are different. Edited March 1, 2009 by Thucydides Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bardon Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 A post by the OP. In my view, expensive land is the problem now, but it is not where the problem starts. The cause of all this is overly-restrictive planning laws and certain governments not releasing enough land for new builds. This makes land a premium far more than it need be, and when coupled with banks that will lend anything to anyone, you get an upward spiral of house prices. In other words, the British Government is to blame, or the Australian State Governments which run similarly restrictive policies and cause shortages in housing stock. What about the Land Banking Developers surely they are restricting supply ? Fortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) I'm sure seasoned and hardened HPC members will know this, but it concerns me how much denial there still is out there about what is causing and worsening this recession.We hear a lot of media stories about car industry woes, retail busts and many other small business problems, and they are often reported as being a result of "The Recession". Often, links to property speculation and house price inflation are never mentioned and the implication is that these difficult times are as a result of banking problems, losses, reduced demand etc, etc. But in my view the root cause of all these things, without a SINGLE exception, can easily be traced to housing inflation and its associated debt levels. /...... No other single economic factor is responsible. VP VP -- You are my hero -- I feel EXACTLY the same way as you do. Most people devote the largest proportion of their life earnings on the roof over their heads. This "roof" has been subjected to the Greatest Fraud/Pyramid Scam/Ponzi scheme of ALL TIME -- AND HERE LIES THE ROOT OF MOST OF /ALL THE PROBLEMS WE NOW FIND OURSELVES FACING. PROPERTY HAS BEEN HIJACKED AND USED AS THE MAIN PART FOR THE GREATEST FINANCIAL FRAUD IN ALL HISTORY. Edited March 1, 2009 by eric pebble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 While the property boom did cause many ills it is still a symptom in a long chain of events and not the root of the problem. Disagree. It was THE point at which everything revolved. The Ponzi Scam Mortgage Fraudsters knew that if they manipulated the sheepie via ENDLESS 24/7 Property Propaganda [tv property programmes; magazines/newspaper articles EVERY DAY about "Property Investment" etc etc.] - they could USE people as the CASH COW to fuel the entire system.... Of course it was all pretend money in reality -- and was bound to fail as people were stretched to breaking point. As said before - you can stretch the elastic more and more and more...... but eventually it will snap. And THAT is what has happened now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babesagainstmachines Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 No. It's deeper than property. It's built in to the debt based monetary system. Property does play a part, but only as the vehicle of debt expansion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Hatred Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 No. It's deeper than property. It's built in to the debt based monetary system. Property does play a part, but only as the vehicle of debt expansion. Good point. Property was just the hook that they used to lure everyone into the scam - an emotive hook, since we all need somewhere to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) The more productive people are, the more rentier behaviour they can support. However, rentiers are by nature grasping asshats with nothing to offer but greed and fear, so the rentiers always go too far, which then crashes the productive bit, causing a recession/depression. The easiest point of coercive behaviour for those with a monopoly on force and a printing press is where people live - so that's the primary mechanism for taking their wealth off them. The cost of housing is generally the cost of getting the powerful to leave you the ****** alone and depends on how grasping they are being at the time. Edited March 1, 2009 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selling up Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 No. It's deeper than property. It's built in to the debt based monetary system. Property does play a part, but only as the vehicle of debt expansion. I have to agree, though I think the OP's post is excellent. This time it was property. In the 17th century it was tulips. In the 1920s it was shares. Property is not unique in its bubble-forming potential. It is true that THIS recession is indeed caused by the bursting of a bubble which happened to be in property. But look deeper and you will see that all bubbles are driven by debt and speculation, which are inherent in our monetary system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone_Twin Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I have to agree, though I think the OP's post is excellent.This time it was property. In the 17th century it was tulips. In the 1920s it was shares. Property is not unique in its bubble-forming potential. It is true that THIS recession is indeed caused by the bursting of a bubble which happened to be in property. But look deeper and you will see that all bubbles are driven by debt and speculation, which are inherent in our monetary system. +1 good summary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezerinno Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 No. It's deeper than property. It's built in to the debt based monetary system. Property does play a part, but only as the vehicle of debt expansion. This was what I was getting at. Good post all the same though OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammysnake Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 More historical facts.. This is not a just a recession, its a shift in demographics, and morality. Trust in banking and government has collapsed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacantPossession Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 Well unless you're developing a system of mind control I don't know how you're going to change the thoughts that one person has of another. Perhaps you're going to campaign for a 'be nice to renters week' or somesuch. The step in the wrong direction bit means that you're essentially seeking to normalise a process that is both unnatural and the cause of the financial chaos that's been unleashed. Owner occupiers and renters aren't essentially the same because only the owner occupiers can charge for access to their private resource: the renters will always have to pay as there's no way of escaping the costs of housing. To truly equalise the two sets of people would require the financial benefits of occupying certain spaces to be taken back into the public purse: this would mean taxing the owners to stop run away house prices. Of course you are right that you cannot force a change in attitude. But it doesn't have to be forced. It simply needs government and official bodies to act in a way that tends to promote equal status, and the first practical step in this direction is to apply a ceiling on sold primary residence profits above a reasonable threshold. The key to diversion of funds into property speculation is the excessive unearned income / profit made not just on secondary homes but on primary residences, the most common method being to sell off a London or other "desirable" City property then moving out of the city catchments in order to generate loads of cash which is/was then spent on a lifestyle that was never earned. Moreover, the cashing in of high city values simply excercerbates the problem even more, leading to ludicrous property value differences between urban, city and rural areas, but also creating distorted values in favoured rural areas (Cornwall for example, which cannot deal with the chasms between extremely low local incomes and high disposable incomes of new buyers). This in turn creates areas where such distortion shuts out long term residents from having access to decent housing. The whole thing becomes a spiral. VP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacantPossession Posted March 1, 2009 Author Share Posted March 1, 2009 No. It's deeper than property. It's built in to the debt based monetary system. Property does play a part, but only as the vehicle of debt expansion. Point taken, but what drove the debt system more than any other factor? Property, and its promise of quick profits. The two are inextricably linked. VP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 More historical facts..This is not a just a recession, its a shift in demographics, and morality. Trust in banking and government has collapsed And about time! One are fraudsters, the other mass murderers and thieves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Home_To_Roost Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) It's all linked to greed and over confidence: 1) Homeowners wanting to increase the value of their "asset" ... or is it ..... ACCOMODATION? 2) Sheeple buying overvalued properties (helping to "raise the bar") 3) BTL restricting the supply of houses 4) estate agents wanting maximum profits 5) Banks wanting max profits 6) All of the above have been exposed as complete fools: You cannot predict the future! 7) Finally: The UK culture of home "ownership", the obsession with property values, and materialism. You don't own a home until you've paid for it! Edited March 1, 2009 by Home_To_Roost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 It was a credit boom that caused the problem. The over-inflated property market was just a resultant effect of it. Very good post VP The credit boom was also caused by the property boom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 While the property boom did cause many ills it is still a symptom in a long chain of events and not the root of the problem. This is a misunderstanding land property and the way it is treated is the root of the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 This is a misunderstandingland property and the way it is treated is the root of the problem Yup. It's all about the freeloaders using monopoly on land to chisel everyone else into oblivion. The sad fact is that while capitalsim has been feverishly beavering away providing ever high standards of living, the PTB have looked at the debts this has created and made the massive, massive mistake of thinking that the debts caused the productivity. Therefore the thinking ran - more debt must equal more productivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stars Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I have to agree, though I think the OP's post is excellent.This time it was property. In the 17th century it was tulips. In the 1920s it was shares. Tulip mania wasn't very destructive at all and the 1920s was also real estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 The credit boom was also caused by the property boom Yup. This whole discussion is a bit like the chicken and the egg argument. In the end, it's both - i.e. all of the posts here are right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.