Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
moonriver

This Week's "woman's Own" Magazine.....

Recommended Posts

For any non "Woman's Own" readers here on hpc......

It is in the magazine issue dated 21st October, on the Smart Shopper page, where "Fnancial whizz Sam Downes saves you time and money with these cash-savvy tips",....

...there is an article entitled "HOW TO....sell property without an estate agent",

There are various hints, including sections entitled "Is the price right.?..."Get certified", "Advertise", "Viewings", "How low should you go?", and "The legal bit".

We get a mention in the second section.."Research"., where she advises those who want to be real savvy, to check property trends for free, by looking at houseprice index on the land registry services site.

Then she goes on to say "Another useful site is Housepricecrash.co.uk - despite the scary-sounding name, it can help you to gauge whether it's a good time to sell. The site analyses data from the Land Registry and the Hometrack house price index."

Nice one Sam, not only for giving us a mention, but also on your article advising "would be" sellers on how to sell without an estate agent. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet they didn't advise to go to the "off topic" area. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to happen more and more as the priced out generation supersede the one before it.

I was talking to a late 40s acquaintance the other day, and asked him how he thought his late teenage children and their contemporaries will get on when they want to buy homes of their own. His rueful reply was that they "will never be able to", to which I asked him what would happen when their generation became the politicians, the law makers and the media. Cue a slow dawning that the ******ed generation will only take the ******ing for as long as they absolutely have to before giving it back with knobs on.

Wait until Faisal Islam is the main anchor on C4 news :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to happen more and more as the priced out generation supersede the one before it.

I was talking to a late 40s acquaintance the other day, and asked him how he thought his late teenage children and their contemporaries will get on when they want to buy homes of their own. His rueful reply was that they "will never be able to", to which I asked him what would happen when their generation became the politicians, the law makers and the media. Cue a slow dawning that the ******ed generation will only take the ******ing for as long as they absolutely have to before giving it back with knobs on.

Wait until Faisal Islam is the main anchor on C4 news :P

I am afraid it's privileged politco-fiddlers who have to take the blame, not somebody's uncle! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid it's privileged politco-fiddlers who have to take the blame, not somebody's uncle! :blink:

Nice rationalisation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice rationalisation

This is what I think! My uncle had a fairly large house in an area I could not possibly afford right now, or maybe ever! I don't see the guy "robbed" me in any way! That £3000 he bought it fo, was a lot of money in 1960. All this inter-generational hatred is tripe! It's not somebody's gran robbing you. It is the State! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I think! My uncle had a fairly large house in an area I could not possibly afford right now, or maybe ever! I don't see the guy "robbed" me in any way! That £3000 he bought it fo, was a lot of money in 1960. All this inter-generational hatred is tripe! It's not somebody's gran robbing you. It is the State! :(

I try not to have too much time for hatred, but I think that you are mistaken about the inter-generational hatred being tripe. I was quite struck a couple of years back when a young colleague, fresh out university, wet behind the ears and completely financially naive just blithely stated that they would never be able to be afford a home - and this is a graduate entering teaching and planning to teach in Devon or Cornwall...

I'll allow that the mechanism of moral responsibility is a little bit convoluted and thus the chances of your uncle winding up before a Nuremberg-style trial are slim, but the plain fact is that we as a society have allowed pretty muscular forces loose (globalisation of trade and capital and so-called democratisation of debt) and these forces have re-distributed both wealth and the access to opportunity in a pretty unconscionable way.

Whilst as a claim to authority on matters on economic organisation Bruce Springsteen lacks a little academic glamour a touchstone for me is the line he fell into the habit of calling out at the end of a show; "Nobody wins unless everybody wins".

This is what your uncle and the society of which he was a representative member got wrong. Whilst their house prices were rising and they were MEWing out holidays and cars they never stopped to think about the broader consequences of turning houses into debt facilitated cash machines. Too few people saw that this magic wealth was not brought by hard work or greater productivity. This new wealth was a redistribution - some could win provided others lost. The tricky thing was spotting who was going to lose.

My view is that people assumed that past trends of house price inflation being broadly followed by wage inflation would continue but what was missed was that the rate of house price inflation was monstrous because it was partly backed by overseas trade surpluses looking for a new home and secondly that those trade surpluses existed because of changes to the structure of the global economy which would irrevocably alter the ability of the UK economy to generate wage inflation (other than through rampant credit expansion). In this way they missed the fact that by borrowing and borrowing they were setting up a redistribution of wealth from the future (and thus their children's generation) to the present (and thus to themselves).

I'm afraid that ignorance of the exact mechanism is a pretty lousy defence. There is no such thing as a free lunch. People should have known that something was up by 2003 latest. For my sins, I naively thought that it was just a common or garden asset price bubble and only after 2008 when it became clear that the powers that be in the UK seem to feel that we couldn't cope with it popping did I take a closer interest in what the hell was going on.

Because this story is only half told - the debts have not gone anywhere. Our ability to sustain them was an artefact of the debt expansion, and the expansion of private debt has now gone. The ability of the government to expand credit is also essentially tapped out.

I've been trying to think of a concise way to capture where we are now and it seems to me that what has been going on since 2008 is that banks and the Bank of England are getting the banking sector ready to take the hit that everybody knows is coming when house prices correct. Help to Buy is just a whimsical policy sideshow. The material changes (ending interest only lending, ending high-Loan To Value lending, ending self-certification) all point the same way.

What would be interesting to know is what Osborne really thinks. I suspect that he and his Treasury are totally on board with the plan to strengthen the banks' balance sheets, off load as much of the government's exposure as possible and in due course let interest rates rise and let house prices correct downwards. Schemes like Help to Buy seem to me to be a continuing strand of strategy where they pretend that current prices are reasonable, should be sustained and might rise - just read it as "Don't spook the horses".

At some point two things will change, firstly rates will rise and borrowers at the margin will not be offered generous forbearance (as they were from 2008-2010) and then secondly the government (Labour, Tory or coalition) will sit on the sidelines quietly as prices fall, (because enough of the banks are considered to be out of the woods).

In the meantime the younger generations will hate, because they will feel that they were robbed blind by an older cohort of people who were either ignorant or greedy or ignorant and greedy. The fact that they themselves would have done the same thing were roles reversed will not have any bearing on how they feel.

Edited by ChairmanOfTheBored

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest unfunded_liability

This is going to happen more and more as the priced out generation supersede the one before it.

I was talking to a late 40s acquaintance the other day, and asked him how he thought his late teenage children and their contemporaries will get on when they want to buy homes of their own. His rueful reply was that they "will never be able to", to which I asked him what would happen when their generation became the politicians, the law makers and the media. Cue a slow dawning that the ******ed generation will only take the ******ing for as long as they absolutely have to before giving it back with knobs on.

Wait until Faisal Islam is the main anchor on C4 news :P

I suspect that as usual only the elite of his teenage children's generation will successfully find their way into politics, law making and media top jobs. And they won't give a **** about the priced out generation.

Edited by unfunded_liability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I think! My uncle had a fairly large house in an area I could not possibly afford right now, or maybe ever! I don't see the guy "robbed" me in any way! That £3000 he bought it fo, was a lot of money in 1960. All this inter-generational hatred is tripe! It's not somebody's gran robbing you. It is the State! :(

No it wasn't. My parents bought a new build 3 bed detached with garage for £3k in 1962 (Northampton)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I think! My uncle had a fairly large house in an area I could not possibly afford right now, or maybe ever! I don't see the guy "robbed" me in any way! That £3000 he bought it fo, was a lot of money in 1960. All this inter-generational hatred is tripe! It's not somebody's gran robbing you. It is the State! :(

ChairmanOfTheBored summarised it much better than I could, but his last paragraph below - says it all I think. In addition, my post probably made it sound like I'm predicting some sort of matricidal armageddon. I'm not, but the generation that calls the shots on the day will make sure they are best looked after, not the ones before or after them. It's human nature.

In the meantime the younger generations will hate, because they will feel that they were robbed blind by an older cohort of people who were either ignorant or greedy or ignorant and greedy. The fact that they themselves would have done the same thing were roles reversed will not have any bearing on how they feel.

I suspect that as usual only the elite of his teenage children's generation will successfully find their way into politics, law making and media top jobs. And they won't give a **** about the priced out generation.

Whilst I agree that the elite will make it to the very top, there will be plenty of less elite making it near enough to get their message across. Today, Woman's Own. Tomorrow, erm Smash Hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid it's privileged politco-fiddlers who have to take the blame, not somebody's uncle! :blink:

now we have to ascertain why the politico's are fiddling.(doesn't matter much whether it's prospective king/emeror who thinks he has the divine right to rule...or the opposition that think that every bit of personal property should be abolished( apart from theirs and other "personal" stuff like their spouses.....notice when it gets really communistic and any personal family links get questioned these guys will start to baulk......because they are still emotional beings and need to relate to some people......they don't really "get" real communism at all.....EVERYTHING is collective.)

when push comes to shove, these debating-society champions will be the first ones to run for the exits..and they will realise just how badly they have been conned.

you would have thought that milliband would have known better....or perhaps they need another spell in the gulags to remind them.

...as for blair...he's out and out fascist......so perhaps he would like to spend some time in a jewish concentration camp having all sorts of "inquisatorial" experiments done on him to make him comply....or should that be left to the mad mullahs...as they are so similar in mindset?

is it sabotage or is it a power-grab(or both?)

either way, it's sedition at best, high treason at worst.

Edited by oracle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to have too much time for hatred, but I think that you are mistaken about the inter-generational hatred being tripe. I was quite struck a couple of years back when a young colleague, fresh out university, wet behind the ears and completely financially naive just blithely stated that they would never be able to be afford a home - and this is a graduate entering teaching and planning to teach in Devon or Cornwall...

I'll allow that the mechanism of moral responsibility is a little bit convoluted and thus the chances of your uncle winding up before a Nuremberg-style trial are slim, but the plain fact is that we as a society have allowed pretty muscular forces loose (globalisation of trade and capital and so-called democratisation of debt) and these forces have re-distributed both wealth and the access to opportunity in a pretty unconscionable way.

Whilst as a claim to authority on matters on economic organisation Bruce Springsteen lacks a little academic glamour a touchstone for me is the line he fell into the habit of calling out at the end of a show; "Nobody wins unless everybody wins".

This is what your uncle and the society of which he was a representative member got wrong. Whilst their house prices were rising and they were MEWing out holidays and cars they never stopped to think about the broader consequences of turning houses into debt facilitated cash machines. Too few people saw that this magic wealth was not brought by hard work or greater productivity. This new wealth was a redistribution - some could win provided others lost. The tricky thing was spotting who was going to lose.

My view is that people assumed that past trends of house price inflation being broadly followed by wage inflation would continue but what was missed was that the rate of house price inflation was monstrous because it was partly backed by overseas trade surpluses looking for a new home and secondly that those trade surpluses existed because of changes to the structure of the global economy which would irrevocably alter the ability of the UK economy to generate wage inflation (other than through rampant credit expansion). In this way they missed the fact that by borrowing and borrowing they were setting up a redistribution of wealth from the future (and thus their children's generation) to the present (and thus to themselves).

I'm afraid that ignorance of the exact mechanism is a pretty lousy defence. There is no such thing as a free lunch. People should have known that something was up by 2003 latest. For my sins, I naively thought that it was just a common or garden asset price bubble and only after 2008 when it became clear that the powers that be in the UK seem to feel that we couldn't cope with it popping did I take a closer interest in what the hell was going on.

Because this story is only half told - the debts have not gone anywhere. Our ability to sustain them was an artefact of the debt expansion, and the expansion of private debt has now gone. The ability of the government to expand credit is also essentially tapped out.

I've been trying to think of a concise way to capture where we are now and it seems to me that what has been going on since 2008 is that banks and the Bank of England are getting the banking sector ready to take the hit that everybody knows is coming when house prices correct. Help to Buy is just a whimsical policy sideshow. The material changes (ending interest only lending, ending high-Loan To Value lending, ending self-certification) all point the same way.

What would be interesting to know is what Osborne really thinks. I suspect that he and his Treasury are totally on board with the plan to strengthen the banks' balance sheets, off load as much of the government's exposure as possible and in due course let interest rates rise and let house prices correct downwards. Schemes like Help to Buy seem to me to be a continuing strand of strategy where they pretend that current prices are reasonable, should be sustained and might rise - just read it as "Don't spook the horses".

At some point two things will change, firstly rates will rise and borrowers at the margin will not be offered generous forbearance (as they were from 2008-2010) and then secondly the government (Labour, Tory or coalition) will sit on the sidelines quietly as prices fall, (because enough of the banks are considered to be out of the woods).

In the meantime the younger generations will hate, because they will feel that they were robbed blind by an older cohort of people who were either ignorant or greedy or ignorant and greedy. The fact that they themselves would have done the same thing were roles reversed will not have any bearing on how they feel.

+1.

I think the HTB scheme, especially being brought forward the way it was, combined with the immense propaganda push we have seen has shown the governments (desperate) hand. IMO these occurrences have nothing to do with an attempt to stimulate a boom, but are simply one last co-ordinated attempt to squeeze as much out of the current situation in the banks favour as possible before the inevitable happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1.

I think the HTB scheme, especially being brought forward the way it was, combined with the immense propaganda push we have seen has shown the governments (desperate) hand. IMO these occurrences have nothing to do with an attempt to stimulate a boom, but are simply one last co-ordinated attempt to squeeze as much out of the current situation in the banks favour as possible before the inevitable happens.

The inevitable will always happen, because it is inevitable. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to have too much time for hatred, but I think that you are mistaken about the inter-generational hatred being tripe. I was quite struck a couple of years back when a young colleague, fresh out university, wet behind the ears and completely financially naive just blithely stated that they would never be able to be afford a home - and this is a graduate entering teaching and planning to teach in Devon or Cornwall...

I'll allow that the mechanism of moral responsibility is a little bit convoluted and thus the chances of your uncle winding up before a Nuremberg-style trial are slim, but the plain fact is that we as a society have allowed pretty muscular forces loose (globalisation of trade and capital and so-called democratisation of debt) and these forces have re-distributed both wealth and the access to opportunity in a pretty unconscionable way.

Whilst as a claim to authority on matters on economic organisation Bruce Springsteen lacks a little academic glamour a touchstone for me is the line he fell into the habit of calling out at the end of a show; "Nobody wins unless everybody wins".

This is what your uncle and the society of which he was a representative member got wrong. Whilst their house prices were rising and they were MEWing out holidays and cars they never stopped to think about the broader consequences of turning houses into debt facilitated cash machines. Too few people saw that this magic wealth was not brought by hard work or greater productivity. This new wealth was a redistribution - some could win provided others lost. The tricky thing was spotting who was going to lose.

My view is that people assumed that past trends of house price inflation being broadly followed by wage inflation would continue but what was missed was that the rate of house price inflation was monstrous because it was partly backed by overseas trade surpluses looking for a new home and secondly that those trade surpluses existed because of changes to the structure of the global economy which would irrevocably alter the ability of the UK economy to generate wage inflation (other than through rampant credit expansion). In this way they missed the fact that by borrowing and borrowing they were setting up a redistribution of wealth from the future (and thus their children's generation) to the present (and thus to themselves).

I'm afraid that ignorance of the exact mechanism is a pretty lousy defence. There is no such thing as a free lunch. People should have known that something was up by 2003 latest. For my sins, I naively thought that it was just a common or garden asset price bubble and only after 2008 when it became clear that the powers that be in the UK seem to feel that we couldn't cope with it popping did I take a closer interest in what the hell was going on.

Because this story is only half told - the debts have not gone anywhere. Our ability to sustain them was an artefact of the debt expansion, and the expansion of private debt has now gone. The ability of the government to expand credit is also essentially tapped out.

I've been trying to think of a concise way to capture where we are now and it seems to me that what has been going on since 2008 is that banks and the Bank of England are getting the banking sector ready to take the hit that everybody knows is coming when house prices correct. Help to Buy is just a whimsical policy sideshow. The material changes (ending interest only lending, ending high-Loan To Value lending, ending self-certification) all point the same way.

What would be interesting to know is what Osborne really thinks. I suspect that he and his Treasury are totally on board with the plan to strengthen the banks' balance sheets, off load as much of the government's exposure as possible and in due course let interest rates rise and let house prices correct downwards. Schemes like Help to Buy seem to me to be a continuing strand of strategy where they pretend that current prices are reasonable, should be sustained and might rise - just read it as "Don't spook the horses".

At some point two things will change, firstly rates will rise and borrowers at the margin will not be offered generous forbearance (as they were from 2008-2010) and then secondly the government (Labour, Tory or coalition) will sit on the sidelines quietly as prices fall, (because enough of the banks are considered to be out of the woods).

In the meantime the younger generations will hate, because they will feel that they were robbed blind by an older cohort of people who were either ignorant or greedy or ignorant and greedy. The fact that they themselves would have done the same thing were roles reversed will not have any bearing on how they feel.

Great post CoTb, but do you really think allowing interest rates to rise and a correction to occur is being mooted by any party and which one in particular do you think is more likely to entertain this thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post CoTb, but do you really think allowing interest rates to rise and a correction to occur is being mooted by any party and which one in particular do you think is more likely to entertain this thought?

IMO all of them, most of their front line politicians are financially sorted and property wise sorted, they don`t have the same skin in the game as Joe F*uckwit the local BTL magnate, their aim is to juggle the whole basket of nonsense and keep it upright without losing an election, the views on here are shared by anybody with a brain and a grasp of some economics, that is most politicians in private, what they say in public is for sheeple consumption only, they know the thinkers have already seen what is going on and decided on their viewpoint for themselves. They are not really in control of interest rates though?

Edited by dances with sheeple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post CoTb, but do you really think allowing interest rates to rise and a correction to occur is being mooted by any party and which one in particular do you think is more likely to entertain this thought?

It will never be mooted as policy. However, if keeping an economy on track was as simple as keeping the policy rate on the floor, then the policy rate would never get off the floor. The policy rate is one tool in the control of the money supply. The control of the money supply has huge political implications, (i.e. high interest rates and hard money advantages net creditors and rips the face off the weakest net debtors). Over time the political calculus shifts. Any party wishing to hold power will shift policy as the political calculus shifts. In fact it seems obvious to argue that the concentration of housing wealth that is resulting from present policy actually weakens the hand of those who hold housing wealth as they become more and more likely to be out-voted.

IMO all of them, most of their front line politicians are financially sorted and property wise sorted, they don`t have the same skin in the game as Joe F*uckwit the local BTL magnate, their aim is to juggle the whole basket of nonsense and keep it upright without losing an election, the views on here are shared by anybody with a brain and a grasp of some economics, that is most politicians in private, what they say in public is for sheeple consumption only, they know the thinkers have already seen what is going on and decided on their viewpoint for themselves. They are not really in control of interest rates though?

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will never be mooted as policy. However, if keeping an economy on track was as simple as keeping the policy rate on the floor, then the policy rate would never get off the floor. The policy rate is one tool in the control of the money supply. The control of the money supply has huge political implications, (i.e. high interest rates and hard money advantages net creditors and rips the face off the weakest net debtors). Over time the political calculus shifts. Any party wishing to hold power will shift policy as the political calculus shifts. In fact it seems obvious to argue that the concentration of housing wealth that is resulting from present policy actually weakens the hand of those who hold housing wealth as they become more and more likely to be out-voted.

+1

Interesting as always.

My MP is as wet as a Con gets on monetary policy, and he has plenty of like minded colleagues in the Parliamentary contingent. Do you think these types will be rooted out following a Cameron defeat? I reckon the Cons are in a much worse place than they care to acknowledge. They have ignored the fact that it takes a while to nurture new blood in pursuit of keeping the same diminishing pool of voters happy. An existential crisis beckons imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to have too much time for hatred, ..//..

..//..

This is what your uncle and the society of which he was a representative member got wrong. Whilst their house prices were rising and they were MEWing out holidays and cars they never stopped to think about the broader consequences of turning houses into debt facilitated cash machines. Too few people saw that this magic wealth was not brought by hard work or greater productivity. This new wealth was a redistribution - some could win provided others lost. The tricky thing was spotting who was going to lose.

..//...

I'm afraid that ignorance of the exact mechanism is a pretty lousy defence. There is no such thing as a free lunch. People should have known that something was up by 2003 latest. For my sins, I naively thought that it was just a common or garden asset price bubble and only after 2008 when it became clear that the powers that be in the UK seem to feel that we couldn't cope with it popping did I take a closer interest in what the hell was going on.

Because this story is only half told - the debts have not gone anywhere. Our ability to sustain them was an artefact of the debt expansion, and the expansion of private debt has now gone. The ability of the government to expand credit is also essentially tapped out.

..//...

In the meantime the younger generations will hate, because they will feel that they were robbed blind by an older cohort of people who were either ignorant or greedy or ignorant and greedy. The fact that they themselves would have done the same thing were roles reversed will not have any bearing on how they feel.

Excellent post. Superb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post CoTb, but do you really think allowing interest rates to rise and a correction to occur is being mooted by any party and which one in particular do you think is more likely to entertain this thought?

Of course not... :rolleyes:

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   211 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.