EUBanana Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I'm sorry but I just have to laugh. Either you or one of the others with whom I debate with here who have view points like yours, has told me quite plainly that house building should be left in private sector hands, because the public sector can't build houses efficiently, and to paraphrase, the private sector knows best. And yes that is what neoliberalism boils down to. The private sector (except when it hurts aforesaid interests) knows best. If not then tell me why we stopped building council housing? It should be left in private sector hands. I should be able to go out and buy a plot of land and build on it. Like you can do in any other country practically. But I can't, the government would come and bulldoze it unless I pay them their danegeld. And the price of the danegeld is considerably greater than the price of the land or the building on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 It should be left in private sector hands. I should be able to go out and buy a plot of land and build on it. Like you can do in any other country practically. But I can't, the government would come and bulldoze it unless I pay them their danegeld. And the price of the danegeld is considerably greater than the price of the land or the building on it. Amusing, you neatly avoided the question I asked. So I will ask again. Why have we stopped building council housing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I'm not sure you'd find any voter in favour of that. No you won't, well except from those benefiting from this system, which is why there is currently such a backlash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 It should be left in private sector hands. I should be able to go out and buy a plot of land and build on it. Like you can do in any other country practically. But I can't, the government would come and bulldoze it unless I pay them their danegeld. And the price of the danegeld is considerably greater than the price of the land or the building on it. + 1 As far as I can see the real issue with neo-liberalism is that it's not actually liberal, it just subsumed the term "liberalism" as a smoke screen for an essentially corporatist agenda. Neo-liberalism likes to say the markets are always right but what it actually believes is the corporations are always right: hence the mix of deregulation and over regulation that massively benefits mortgage lenders and slave-box builders while massively disadvantaging private self-builders. It's not a free market because it's overrun with monopolies, cartels, vested interests and powerful lobbyists. It's not a socialist market because only the losses are being socialised while all the profits are being siphoned off. It's just a b*lls up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron78 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) central planning,over regulation and a small clique of people deciding whats best for us whether you like it or not...tose that dissent being treated to a bit of "nudge" therapy is very very far from neo-liberal. . If it isn't beneficial neoliberally, why aren't any of the big private housebuilding firms clamouring to change any of the aforementioned central planning/over regulation?We should have heard the major free market house builders screaming from the rafters begging to have red tape removed and the green belt built on for the past 25-30 years, and yet we haven't. Why? Because red tape and central planning are very helpful when it comes to developing a monopoly. Without those anyone could build their own home anywhere. No profit in that. I agree what we have does seem completely at odds with the neoliberal spirit, but this is corporate neoliberalism, not individual neoliberalism. They want what benefit and profits them, not you. Edited May 21, 2014 by byron78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 + 1 As far as I can see the real issue with neo-liberalism is that it's not actually liberal, it just subsumed the term "liberalism" as a smoke screen for an essentially corporatist agenda. Neo-liberalism likes to say the markets are always right but what it actually believes is the corporations are always right: hence the mix of deregulation and over regulation that massively benefits mortgage lenders and slave-box builders while massively disadvantaging private self-builders. It's not a free market because it's overrun with monopolies, cartels, vested interests and powerful lobbyists. It's not a socialist market because only the losses are being socialised while all the profits are being siphoned off. It's just a b*lls up. The thing is human nature being what it is I don't think true free markets are ever possible. It's like the anglican priest who denounces his congregation for infidelity, until some attractive young housewife catches his eye.....he believes in it until the temptation to do otherwise comes along.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 + 1 As far as I can see the real issue with neo-liberalism is that it's not actually liberal, it just subsumed the term "liberalism" as a smoke screen for an essentially corporatist agenda. Neo-liberalism likes to say the markets are always right but what it actually believes is the corporations are always right: hence the mix of deregulation and over regulation that massively benefits mortgage lenders and slave-box builders while massively disadvantaging private self-builders. It's not a free market because it's overrun with monopolies, cartels, vested interests and powerful lobbyists. It's not a socialist market because only the losses are being socialised while all the profits are being siphoned off. It's just a b*lls up. The blame game is interesting though. Apparently its all the fault of socialists, immigrants and foreigners. It all would have been OK if New Labour hadn't bailed out the banks - neo-liberal capitalism was working just fine until then. The immigrants are pushing up house prices and demanding we concrete over our countryside. And its Europe that buggered up capitalism with all its anti-neo-liberal red tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) The blame game is interesting though. Apparently its all the fault of socialists, immigrants and foreigners. It all would have been OK if New Labour hadn't bailed out the banks - neo-liberal capitalism was working just fine until then. The immigrants are pushing up house prices and demanding we concrete over our countryside. And its Europe that buggered up capitalism with all its anti-neo-liberal red tape. Yes, though they don't mention that whichever country you look at, those bailouts still happened even if the political right was in power at the time. Moreover it's not just the bank bailouts that work this way, the whole system has worked this way for quite a while now. It's just that the bank bailouts were the visible tip of the iceberg. The fallout, however, has helped expose so much more of the "iceberg". The people are pissed. Edited May 21, 2014 by alexw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 If it isn't beneficial neoliberally, why aren't any of the big private housebuilding firms clamouring to change any of the aforementioned central planning/over regulation? We should have heard the major free market house builders screaming from the rafters begging to have red tape removed and the green belt built on for the past 25-30 years, and yet we haven't. Why? Because red tape and central planning are very helpful when it comes to developing a monopoly. Without those anyone could build their own home anywhere. No profit in that. I agree what we have does seem completely at odds with the neoliberal spirit, but this is corporate neoliberalism, not individual neoliberalism. They want what benefit and profits them, not you. I am concerned with how housebuilding is structured in the UK - but I don't believe this. There is no way that house-builders are supportive of planning and they would love nothing better to let rip all over the green-belt. Housebuilding is run by increasingly fewer and larger companies - with I believe detrimental for the quality and choice of housing - and this is nothing to do with planning or red-tape but simply the natural result of the 'free market'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Yes, though they don't mention that whichever country you look at, those bailouts still happened even if the political right was in power at the time. Moreover it's not just the bank bailouts that work this way, the whole system has worked this way for quite a while now. It's just that the bank bailouts were the visible tip of the iceberg. The fallout, however, has helped expose so much more of the "iceberg". The people are pissed. True. To be fair there is an interesting 'in principal' argument to be had - i.e. even if it was a right-wing government was it a 'socialist' action in principal ? I suspect that this is complacent: without the bail-outs the whole system collapses taking neo-liberalism with it. I don't think they are pissed enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron78 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) I am concerned with how housebuilding is structured in the UK - but I don't believe this. There is no way that house-builders are supportive of planning and they would love nothing better to let rip all over the green-belt. Housebuilding is run by increasingly fewer and larger companies - with I believe detrimental for the quality and choice of housing - and this is nothing to do with planning or red-tape but simply the natural result of the 'free market'. They'd love exclusive access to the greenbelt I'm sure!Has a major house builder ever called for planning to be relaxed and the greenbelt land to be freed en mass though (I know Wimpey had a hand in recent Tory proposals, but again proposing freeing developable greenbelt land to large developers who already own many undeveloped brown field sites isn't exactly freeing much for anyone other than themselves is it)? They're paying millions in lobbying and political contributions for something and have been for a long time, so they must sense some benefit in the current system. Edited May 21, 2014 by byron78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 The thing is human nature being what it is I don't think true free markets are ever possible. It's like the anglican priest who denounces his congregation for infidelity, until some attractive young housewife catches his eye.....he believes in it until the temptation to do otherwise comes along.... I think it would be possible to regulate markets with the sole purpose of keeping the market free i.e. regulate against monopolies, cartels, government intervention (including any regulation thats sole purpose isn't to keep the market free), etc. The only real problem I can see with this is R&D because shareholders are notoriously rubbish at imputing the worth of peer reviewed literature, so maybe scientific research needs a different funding model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 The blame game is interesting though. Apparently its all the fault of socialists, immigrants and foreigners. It all would have been OK if New Labour hadn't bailed out the banks - neo-liberal capitalism was working just fine until then. The immigrants are pushing up house prices and demanding we concrete over our countryside. And its Europe that buggered up capitalism with all its anti-neo-liberal red tape. Divide and rule. It's depressingly effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 They'd love exclusive access to the greenbelt I'm sure! Has a major house builder ever called for planning to be relaxed and the greenbelt land to be freed en mass though? They're paying millions in lobbying and political contributions for something and have been for a long time, so they must sense some benefit in the current system. Yes of course - they pay huge amounts of money and spend huge amounts of time in planning. Negotiations with local authorities are epic and involve obligations to build or pay for new schools etc. They are always kicking off and blaming regulation with respect to why they are not delivering. Your instinct that its a monopolistic stitch-up that is delivering poor housing is probably right - its just misplaced. All that regulation and all those obligations are just trying to force the private sector to deliver what we need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Yes of course - they pay huge amounts of money and spend huge amounts of time in planning. Negotiations with local authorities are epic and involve obligations to build or pay for new schools etc. They are always kicking off and blaming regulation with respect to why they are not delivering. Your instinct that its a monopolistic stitch-up that is delivering poor housing is probably right - its just misplaced. All that regulation and all those obligations are just trying to force the private sector to deliver what we need. Or to deliver a thin veneer of what we need so we don't kick off ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Or to deliver a thin veneer of what we need so we don't kick off ? Lol! - no the idea that 500 houses might need a local school is not a 'thin veneer' nor something that house-builders are likely to provide out of the kindness of their hearts. In theory you should'nt have to force the private sector at all to make better stuff - you don't see the government forcing car-makers to make better cars or computer makers to make better computers. And anyway even in these industries there are basic 'standards' to which they must adhere. I think that the Thatcherist/neo-liberal experiment is failing in particular in the housing sector. I haven't given up on the idea of a private sector delivering in principal, I just think its such a mess now that for the short to mid-term at least only a massive injection of high quality public housing is going to shake it out of its complacency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 True. To be fair there is an interesting 'in principal' argument to be had - i.e. even if it was a right-wing government was it a 'socialist' action in principal ? I suspect that this is complacent: without the bail-outs the whole system collapses taking neo-liberalism with it. I don't think they are pissed enough. Not really. A free-market approach would be let it collapse. A socialist approach would be to bail out but make damn sure the profits were socialized too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byron78 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I think that the Thatcherist/neo-liberal experiment is failing in particular in the housing sector. I haven't given up on the idea of a private sector delivering in principal, I just think its such a mess now that for the short to mid-term at least only a massive injection of high quality public housing is going to shake it out of its complacency. Spot on. If 200K (or even 300k) new homes a year really is the aim, then that's very obviously beyond the private housing sector alone anyway. http://blogs.r.ftdata.co.uk/ftdata/files/2013/02/Housing-completions-by-type.jpg Actually looking at it again, private builds seem to be at their highest historically when public builds are high as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Lol! - no the idea that 500 houses might need a local school is not a 'thin veneer' nor something that house-builders are likely to provide out of the kindness of their hearts. In theory you should'nt have to force the private sector at all to make better stuff - you don't see the government forcing car-makers to make better cars or computer makers to make better computers. And anyway even in these industries there are basic 'standards' to which they must adhere. I think that the Thatcherist/neo-liberal experiment is failing in particular in the housing sector. I haven't given up on the idea of a private sector delivering in principal, I just think its such a mess now that for the short to mid-term at least only a massive injection of high quality public housing is going to shake it out of its complacency. They're being forced to provide a bare minimum of community facilities for what are almost certainly 500 shoddily built and inadequately proportioned houses sold at massive profit margins while the average person has little to no opportunity to self-build (not even in small numbers around pre-existing facilities that are underused or at threat of closure because the community has been hollowed out by second home owners). Seems sort of veneerish to me: even after the school is built the builder's profit margins will still be massive because the freedom to build is so limited for everyone else, but we're okay with that because they built a school! If private individuals were allowed greater opportunities to self-build I'm sure the private sector would be delivering just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Not really. A free-market approach would be let it collapse. A socialist approach would be to bail out but make damn sure the profits were socialized too. Well yes of course. What I am querying is would there actually be a 'free-market' left at the end of the collapse ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Amusing, you neatly avoided the question I asked. So I will ask again. Why have we stopped building council housing? I don't give a monkeys about council housing. I would rather not be taxed, so the government can pick winners and losers with my money, and have a nice client state of people beholden to the state. Council housing is not the solution. I would rather have cheap housing for all, which would happen through liberalisation of the market. This is how it works everywhere other than here. The UK's problem is statism, pure and simple. It is ridiculous that you have to ask permission from the government to shelter yourself, especially in a democracy. That this is considered normal is frankly insane. It is similarly ridiculous to assert that the solution to this entirely self inflicted misery is for the government to provide houses for certain people with their own money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 They're being forced to provide a bare minimum of community facilities for what are almost certainly 500 shoddily built and inadequately proportioned houses sold at massive profit margins while the average person has little to no opportunity to self-build (not even in small numbers around pre-existing facilities that are underused or at threat of closure because the community has been hollowed out by second home owners). Seems sort of veneerish to me: even after the school is built the builder's profit margins will still be massive because the freedom to build is so limited for everyone else, but we're okay with that because they built a school! If private individuals were allowed greater opportunities to self-build I'm sure the private sector would be delivering just fine. Mostly true other than the 'freedom to build' bit. The only thing stopping me from building my own house is the land price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Well yes of course. What I am querying is would there actually be a 'free-market' left at the end of the collapse ? We're not talkign about nuclear weapons. Of course there will, the bricks and mortar won't vanish into thin air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverwhere Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Mostly true other than the 'freedom to build' bit. The only thing stopping me from building my own house is the land price. Land without planning permission is relatively cheap (compared to land with planning permission or actual housing on it, still overvalued in my opinon) so if it's so easy to gain the freedom to build then land price should not be a real obstacle. There has been some softening in central guidance on planning permission recently (not enough in my opinion, there should be a right to build for owner occupation on any plot of land that doesn't already contain a dwelling) but I think we will have to wait and see how this plays out and how much freedom to build it will actually afford the average individual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pig Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Land without planning permission is relatively cheap (compared to land with planning permission or actual housing on it, still overvalued in my opinon) so if it's so easy to gain the freedom to build then land price should not be a real obstacle. There has been some softening in central guidance on planning permission recently (not enough in my opinion, there should be a right to build for owner occupation on any plot of land that doesn't already contain a dwelling) but I think we will have to wait and see how this plays out and how much freedom to build it will actually afford the average individual. Yes its all over-valued. We're in a speculative bubble - pretty much the whole point of this website. Planning is a factor but not THE main factor. 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.