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

Has The West Fallen Prey To Crony Capitalism? - Btl Landlords

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/10772965/Has-the-West-fallen-prey-to-crony-capitalism.html

Around my area in north-west London, the housing market is again red-hot. The only stuff that doesn’t sell is the obviously undesirable or grossly overvalued. But here’s the more interesting thing about the latest boom: the vast majority of these sales, to judge by the “to let” signs that instantly go up as the “for sale” billboards are taken down, is for investment purposes – “buy-to-let” landlords, in other words.

If evidence were needed of the emergence of a new “rentier” class, London is surely it. Every man and his dog seem to be getting in on the act. By simply remortgaging an existing property and using the proceeds to buy the vacated flat down the road, you get yourself an apparently guaranteed source of income and capital growth. What could possibly go wrong? “L’Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers”, according to Napoleon; today we are perhaps better described as a nation of landlords. The cause is a familiar one – constrained supply in a relatively fast-growing economy, made worse by London’s evident attractions to overseas nationals. To operate an open-door immigration policy without first addressing the restricted size of London’s housing stock was an act of almost criminal negligence.

Clearly you need to buy now before you get priced out.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behind the property rentier system is the money rentier system.

On almost every pound in circulation someone, somewhere is paying interest to the originating bank.

The majority of those pounds came into existence via the purchase of property, increasingly BTL.

Rent-a-currency, rent-a-box, rent-a-life. :(

Edited by The Spaniard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His article is basically a defence of the status quo that crony capitalism is ok. Of course the reason he supports it is because he himself has done rather well out of it.

Problem is, more and more people are questioning this system. They see stagnant economies, and the supposed wealth creators taking more and more of the economic pie via rents, skyrocketing asset prices, CEO looting, etc, etc. When it appeared that the masses were doing well (they were not it was just debt), they could be convinced to ignore all this, but now its obvious they are not and thats a recipe for disaster for the rentiers and the 1%.

Add in all the other data thats coming to light, for example Thomas Piketty's work, and that of the IMF, and people are starting to desire change. And so we have articles such as this, but since it's defending the basically undefencable it won't work. I think the 1%ers know it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was wondering today as I was walking back from town, what would happen if everyone (or a significant proportion) just mass defaulted on their mortgages and rents to the extent the Courts, banks, and rentiers couldn't cope with processing repossessions and evictions.

Might be the only way to get rid of these robber barons for good. Just a thought.

10257768_673911086009992_370650540440037

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was wondering today as I was walking back from town, what would happen if everyone (or a significant proportion) just mass defaulted on their mortgages and rents to the extent the Courts, banks, and rentiers couldn't cope with processing repossessions and evictions.

Might be the only way to get rid of these robber barons for good. Just a thought.

I've thought that too.

I'm surprised there's not a renters union yet.

If things keep going the way they are there will be soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking back over the politics of the last 30 years I know think that the arguments about state capital versus private capitalism in Britain that filled the airwaves in my youth was all a lot of tosh. Everything including the Thatcherite privatisations of the 1980s were all about who created and controlled the rent streams (including taxes) and how they were distributed (ie which section of the population got the bunce). Everything else was window dressing or obfuscation. Anything that happened in this period that actually boosted the productive capacity of the country was largely accidental and almost always originated outside the UK. The only thing that has changed is that the reality that was masked or finessed away for so long is now nakedly exposed for all to see.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His article is basically a defence of the status quo that crony capitalism is ok. Of course the reason he supports it is because he himself has done rather well out of it.

Problem is, more and more people are questioning this system. They see stagnant economies, and the supposed wealth creators taking more and more of the economic pie via rents, skyrocketing asset prices, CEO looting, etc, etc. When it appeared that the masses were doing well (they were not it was just debt), they could be convinced to ignore all this, but now its obvious they are not and thats a recipe for disaster for the rentiers and the 1%.

Add in all the other data thats coming to light, for example Thomas Piketty's work, and that of the IMF, and people are starting to desire change. And so we have articles such as this, but since it's defending the basically undefencable it won't work. I think the 1%ers know it too.

wealth creators :D I wonder which 'ONE' of them is that then? 99.9999% parasites to 1 real wealth creater. Bankers, landlords, offshoring manufacturers, plod along inherrited busineses, sweatshop retail emporiums etc, And who are PLC's run for the benefit of.. only the execs I would say, not the public nor the employees and the shareholders get a bum deal as often as not .... yes all wealth creaters by our governments definition

Edited by steve99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought that too.I'm surprised there's not a rentiers union yet.If things keep going the way they are there will be soon enough.

Altered.

There is. It's called the Govt.

Edited by Killer Bunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except if this argument were true then we must have had nigh on 2000 years of bad government. In reality the recent bailouts and gov stuff are just a pinprick in terms of the underlying trend. If we compare the two graphs shown below we know what kept inequality in check after the two world wars - high taxes.

Piketty-R-Versus-G-1024x612.jpg

PikettyGraph-590x432.png

But at least its gone viral so there's a chance of this helping to force political change.

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/27/welcome_to_the_piketty_revolution_capital_in_the_21st_century_is_a_game_changer_even_if_you_never_read_it/

Edited by alexw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except if this argument were true then we must have had nigh on 2000 years of bad government. In reality the recent bailouts and gov stuff are just a pinprick in terms of the underlying trend. If we compare the two graphs shown below we know what kept inequality in check after the two world wars - high taxes.

Amen to that brother, I just liked the quotes from the first article. But here's the thing ..

CH - A Critique of Piketty's Solution to Widening Wealth Inequality

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogapr14/Piketty4-14.html

The problem with Piketty's solution to the intrinsic inequalities created by financialization, neofeudalism and neocolonialism is the super-wealthy might well agree to tax those beneath them, just to prop up the arrangement that benefits them so mightily. I can easily foresee a political movement, secretly funded by the New Nobility, that taxes all wealth above $1 million, but which magically excludes wealth-holders that just happen to be the top .1%.

The New Nobility might even agree to pay a modest wealth tax, which would fund millions more recipients of food stamps, Section 8 housing and other social welfare, in effect institutionalizing neofeudalism and neocolonialism by rendering the unemployed complicit in the arrangement.

If you owned $100 million, and were earning $5 million in rentier income annually, wouldn't you agree to a $1 million tax to fund social welfare programs that kept the rabble sedated with bread and circuses? It's a no-brainer.

The real problem with Piketty's taxation/social welfare solution to wealth inequality is that it does nothing to change the source of systemic inequality, debt-based neofeudalism and neocolonialism. Simply raising more taxes to fund more social welfare programs leaves the unjust, rapacious, and ultimately destabilizing Status Quo entirely intact.

VR2KVUgkLq659hw0AJ4ffRABo1_500.jpg

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:   224 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.