Bruce Banner Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Doesn't the Housing Corporation spend 2 billion quid a year to provide housing for people in your situation? Why are estate agents so patronising? See Below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wealthy Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 But, but, but.... "interest rates must rise", has become the last desperate bleating of the bears. That's hilarious. I seem to remember bulls going on about a new paradigm in price rises because interest rates are low. If this is a new paradigm god knows what happens when interest rates rise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wealthy Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 +1 Quite a confident chap for "3 days of membership" aren't we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wealthy Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Whereas you (bears) would like to see people lose their houses/deposits they put down, so you can pick up a cheap repo/or cheap house through a forced seller.A REAL champion of the people. Replace cheap with "priced normally" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jborg Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Doesn't the Housing Corporation spend 2 billion quid a year to provide housing for people in your situation? "your situation", what? in a secure job earning above the average earnings (lets not get into an argument as to which stats that involves please) with no debt. If i'm having to consider going to Housing Corporation for help in finding a home to buy, surely something is very very wrong. Or do you think that is healthy? If you're going on about shared ownership etc, then you've just proved my point better than i have. I'll try and ignore the condescending tone of your post. EDIT- Not that i am considering the above Edited June 2, 2009 by jborg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Isn't that the sort of attitude that got us into this mess in the first place? The "get as many people as possible" to buy a house?Given that we probably aren't going to increase the supply of housing significantly any time soon, the only way to get houses to drop in price is to reduce demand. Thia has been done recently by removong availability to finance for many people. So those who could have bought a house now can't. Possibly for their own good, preventing them from taking on unsustainable debts/payments. It still means that the are fewer "working people" buying a roof over their heads at the moment. So, you admit that this is a mess. Well done, good start. Now, let`s progress a little, shall we ? Getting more people to buy MP3 players and PCs didn`t force their price up to ridiculous levels, did it ? And I`m sure most of us are very happy that we can store and listen to our music collection on a £20 bit of kit. A reasonable new PC can cost as little as £300, that`s a good thing, isn`t it ? Would the bulls be so happy if there was a shortage of anything else "useful", such a consumer technology ? "But there is a limited supply of property", I hear you cry. True. And why is that ? Well, the UK is a fairly small island, and the population is increasing. I`m sure there is still plenty of space to build homes, and the population could be controlled, to a certain degree. The government have the powers to allow and encourage house building, if they so wished. "Green issues" might be the excuse, so what`s the excuse for encouraging population growth (through immigration and family tax credits etc) ? There`s no "quick fix", but instead of talking about increasing the supply of (affordable) homes, why isn`t the government pulling out all the stops to get some of the many unemployed builders back into work, and get some houses built ? My guess is that the government wants house prices to stay high, or they are just cr@p (probably a bit of both). I want cheaper houses for all, I want people to be employed to build those houses. I don`t want to have to keep listening to those who rejoice in the possibility of houses going up in price (due to lack of supply). Oh, and by the way, I`m sure that another factor in lack of supply is the fact that loose lending and a surge in BTL landlords turned the property market into a casino, and a lot of the chips were bought up by speculators on the back of irresponsible banks. I could go on, but I think you get the message. Finally, here`s a question for the bulls...... Would you welcome a large scale project to build a few extra million homes in the UK ? If not, why not ? Edited June 2, 2009 by Prof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andykn Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Why are estate agents so patronising?See Below. I don't see how that is patronising. This is patronising: Do you know who the housing corporation are or what they do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 And here follows the usual silence from the bulls following a perfectly reasonable question on their views... Still nothing. Too busy working out how much they`ve "lost" in the last two years, and how much ramping will be required to get it back. That`s what I`ve discovered about the bulls, they don`t seem to be very willing to get involved in the wider debate about property in the UK. And one way to keep them really quiet is to raise a question or a point about the morality of welcoming higher house prices. All you get is tumbleweed. The thought of just wanting lower house prices for the good of the people is totally alien to most of them. And I must be a real idiot, for wanting lower house prices, even though I`m a homeowner with £?????? of equity (yes, Hamish, some of us don`t really care). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andykn Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Are you joking or just stupid? You forgot "see below", your usual ad hom substitute for rational argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jborg Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 And here follows the usual silence from the bulls following a perfectly reasonable question on their views... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 And here follows the usual silence from the bulls following a perfectly reasonable question on their views... Give `em chance, they`re thinking.......... Yes, unlikely I know, but they are thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammysnake Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 f f sake it's our weekly vested interest alert..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Well, the bears don't seem too keen on what has been done so far.I'm not keen because there's simply no room for houses where people want to live. I`m not keen because nothing has been done so far. No room for houses where people want to live ? Who says ? Have the people been asked ? Build a small town of houses that cost <£100k, and I`m sure there`ll be plenty of takers. OK, if the town is miles away from anywhere, you have a point, but I`m sure there are some pretty large "gaps" between the cities of the UK. Edited June 2, 2009 by Prof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAMISH_MCTAVISH Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 Would you welcome a large scale project to build a few extra million homes in the UK ? Yes. It has to happen eventually, and there is no way it can be done in time to prevent prices returning to, or more likely moderately exceeding peak levels. If price growth were to then be slowed, or even stopped in real terms, by a massive building programme, I would have no objection. BTL investors could still gain over 25 years, by having a renter subsidise their property purchase. FTB's could get affordable housing. Existing owners would not be penalised by price falls. Win-win situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redgenieuk Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 All I know is that when interest rates rise, theres going to be hell. +1. Oh and when the goverments 2 year interest payment cover runs out. Thats going to cripple many people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomWalk Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 They are seasonally adjusted.Maybe they were 50k ~ but the SA pegged them back. Don't think anyone's posted the NSA numbers, up from 46,542 to 46,797, an increase of only 255. Last year, the equivalent rise was 61,972 to 65,133, an increase of 3,161. The YoY NSA growth in approvals* has therefore reduced between March and April from -24.9% to -28.2%. The YoY SA growth in approvals* has therefore increased between March and April from -33.4% to -21.9%. So there’s seasonal adjustment to the seasonal adjustment factors, ramping the stats before the elections. RW * bull-speak for the hard-of-thinking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Existing owners would be penalised, investment in house building would slow or stop, numerous builders would be left with massive landbanks bought at peak which they could not afford to develop, sell and still stay in business with lower prices, etc etc etc. Those with a vested interest in buying cheaper houses obviously don't care who loses. And those with a vested interest in protecting their existing investments likewise. I have no objection to a win-win situation, and a massive building programme would achieve that. I'm obviously not going to support a situation that penalises me, much as all the posters on here don't want a situation that penalises them. Tough on the builders that bought at peak. I would have said that buying land in the past few years was a bad risk. I wonder what the current losses are for the major landbank owners ? It would be interesting to find out if they could still turn a profit, if they were "forced" to build at reasonable prices. Compared to the cost of the bank bailouts, I suspect that existing investment in land for property development is small (although I`m willing to be told otherwise). Something has got to give. If the government just carry on talking about building more homes, we`ll get nowhere (well, it`ll be great for property speculators, but not so clever for the majority of people that want a home and a life). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 I don't see how that is patronising.This is patronising: Do you know who the housing corporation are or what they do? Are you joking or just stupid? "your situation", what? in a secure job earning above the average earnings (lets not get into an argument as to which stats that involves please) with no debt. If i'm having to consider going to Housing Corporation for help in finding a home to buy, surely something is very very wrong. Or do you think that is healthy? If you're going on about shared ownership etc, then you've just proved my point better than i have. I'll try and ignore the condescending tone of your post. EDIT- Not that i am considering the above Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andykn Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 "your situation", what? in a secure job earning above the average earnings (lets not get into an argument as to which stats that involves please) with no debt. If i'm having to consider going to Housing Corporation for help in finding a home to buy, surely something is very very wrong. Or do you think that is healthy? If you're going on about shared ownership etc, then you've just proved my point better than i have. I'll try and ignore the condescending tone of your post. EDIT- Not that i am considering the above Why is providing housing for key workers such as yourself wrong? What is so wrong with renting all your life? Or are you being condescending to my grandparents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 You forgot "see below", your usual ad hom substitute for rational argument. And another one pins his colours to the mast . The see below is to point out that a bunch of estate agents, of which you are one, are attempting to use this site to ramp the housing market and convince first time buyers to buy into a falling market just to feather your own nests. I'm obviously starting to get to you judging by the number of you that have crawled out of the woodwork today to have a go. Orders from your trollmaster? See below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andykn Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Would you welcome a large scale project to build a few extra million homes in the UK ? If not, why not ? Well, the bears don't seem too keen on what has been done so far. I'm not keen because there's simply no room for houses where people want to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 Well, the bears don't seem too keen on what has been done so far.I'm not keen because there's simply no room for houses where people want to live. dick. nimby dick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 dick. nimby dick. The nimby will always be a problem in this situation. Sod the nimbies, let`s build some houses for the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) Yes. It has to happen eventually, and there is no way it can be done in time to prevent prices returning to, or more likely moderately exceeding peak levels. If price growth were to then be slowed, or even stopped in real terms, by a massive building programme, I would have no objection. BTL investors could still gain over 25 years, by having a renter subsidise their property purchase. FTB's could get affordable housing. Existing owners would not be penalised by price falls. Win-win situation. That`s more like it. Why would you have an objection if price growth were to be stopped in real terms NOW, perhaps by a prolonged period of tight lending by the banks ? (Bull bait). Edit : He`s gone, didn`t even nibble. Drat ! Edited June 2, 2009 by Prof Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAMISH_MCTAVISH Posted June 2, 2009 Author Share Posted June 2, 2009 That`s more like it.Why would you have an objection if price growth were to be stopped in real terms NOW, perhaps by a prolonged period of tight lending by the banks ? (Bull bait). Existing owners would be penalised, investment in house building would slow or stop, numerous builders would be left with massive landbanks bought at peak which they could not afford to develop, sell and still stay in business with lower prices, etc etc etc. Those with a vested interest in buying cheaper houses obviously don't care who loses. And those with a vested interest in protecting their existing investments likewise. I have no objection to a win-win situation, and a massive building programme would achieve that. I'm obviously not going to support a situation that penalises me, much as all the posters on here don't want a situation that penalises them. 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.