Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
anonguest

Speculation Nation

Recommended Posts

Sent this link by a friend.

http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/partying-in-woods.asp

The bit that I picked up on was;

"Purchasing 14 acres woodland, a short drive away all of a sudden made perfect sense. What is the chance of land in Hertfordshire going down?" Dominic asked rhetorically. A £1,000 climbing frame is worth nothing other than firewood five years on, where as our wood will have probably increase by £30,000."

To be fair the chap is correct, a childrens climbing frame will indeed be worth no more and probbaly a lot less in five years. BUT, why is it automatically assumed that land/property MUST increase in value - and by such vast amounts!?

Notice that he didnt choose to justify the purchase on the grounds firstly because of its enjoyment factor, but rather the financial gain.

Was he being flippant and just pulling a number out of the air? Or was this indeed a value that he 'calculated' and took into account when he and the Mrs decided to spend their inheritance on this piece of woodland?

Given a fiat currency and underlying inflationary fundamentals, etc then, sure, assets will over extended time increase in price (Note: 'price' NOT necessarily 'value'). Given recent topical trends/fashion some types of land (e.g farmland) may well outperform pricewise in the next 5 years, BUT plain old woodland???

I cant help but think that the comments made reveal the almost 'hardwired' belief deep rooted in the British psyche that property must rise in price come what may. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Skinty

Parasitic nation.

Let something else do the work and cream off the rewards.

Unfortunately the host is being killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The UK suffers from too much business and not enough industry......

Oh that's a brilliant way of putting it. Consider it nicked.

Good stuff. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest happy?
Sent this link by a friend.

http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/partying-in-woods.asp

The bit that I picked up on was;

"Purchasing 14 acres woodland, a short drive away all of a sudden made perfect sense. What is the chance of land in Hertfordshire going down?" Dominic asked rhetorically. A £1,000 climbing frame is worth nothing other than firewood five years on, where as our wood will have probably increase by £30,000."

To be fair the chap is correct, a childrens climbing frame will indeed be worth no more and probbaly a lot less in five years. BUT, why is it automatically assumed that land/property MUST increase in value - and by such vast amounts!?

Notice that he didnt choose to justify the purchase on the grounds firstly because of its enjoyment factor, but rather the financial gain.

Was he being flippant and just pulling a number out of the air? Or was this indeed a value that he 'calculated' and took into account when he and the Mrs decided to spend their inheritance on this piece of woodland?

Given a fiat currency and underlying inflationary fundamentals, etc then, sure, assets will over extended time increase in price (Note: 'price' NOT necessarily 'value'). Given recent topical trends/fashion some types of land (e.g farmland) may well outperform pricewise in the next 5 years, BUT plain old woodland???

I cant help but think that the comments made reveal the almost 'hardwired' belief deep rooted in the British psyche that property must rise in price come what may. Sad.

I got suspicious round about the time that we learnt Tanya and Dominic's children were called Laura and Ashley.

The bits I really enjoyed of the 'story' were the clunking bit about having cash because building societies wont lend against woodland (i.e. if you want to buy a woodland you gotta MEW) and if you going to MEW you may as well get a 4x4 as well.

The best bit is that the cost of all this (£30k for the car plus driving halfway across the county every time you visit your woodland) is that you can pick-up some free wood for the fashionable new woodstove you've just installed.

Plenty of greenwash to salve consumerism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sent this link by a friend.

http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/partying-in-woods.asp

The bit that I picked up on was;

"Purchasing 14 acres woodland, a short drive away all of a sudden made perfect sense. What is the chance of land in Hertfordshire going down?" Dominic asked rhetorically. A £1,000 climbing frame is worth nothing other than firewood five years on, where as our wood will have probably increase by £30,000."

To be fair the chap is correct, a childrens climbing frame will indeed be worth no more and probbaly a lot less in five years. BUT, why is it automatically assumed that land/property MUST increase in value - and by such vast amounts!?

Because it tends to be true - land goes up in price over time.

Land goes up in price because there is a fixed amount of it and it is used in all production, so technological progress, economic expansion feeds directly into price (to my knowledge it is the only market of this nature that exists).

The whole real estate frenzy was not a some fabrication of fashion - people were actually becoming marvelously wealthy doing absolutely nothing but holding land out of use and allowing others to create the wealth that increased it's price. In fact, the vast majority of millionaires are millionaires because of this mechanism (i would call it loophole)

There is so much to find objectionable in this behaviour, which is basically parasitic, that it amazes me why people focus their criticism of it, on whether it will succeed or not rather than on whether the entire arrangement is remotely moral at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.