Whoops!

[bubbleturbo]

I love the way you blame the possibility of a coming recession on this website.

But oh no it's non of that, it was HPC.CO.UK that done it.......... DOH

It shows how thick he is. I think DumSunReader has got to be one of the most laughable bulls I have seen.

The other rubbish he is saying above about foreign investors "swooping" in to buy all our property up after a crash shows what a total moron he is and how he has no grasp of economics and it's basic concepts.

[ajh]

HP's are probably 20-25% overvalued. Causing a crash of the magnitude of 50-60% which I percieve to be the main aim of this site would not do anything at all for the majority of FTB's. The economy would crash on a scale never seen before, most of you would lose your job, investors with cash be they UK based or foreign would flood into the UK housing market buying up cheap properties as investing cash in the stock market or banks would be a waste of time due to zero interest rates and crashing equity values.The only thing that would remain static is that demand for housing would stay high as builders would stop building. A slow correction in the market is your only hope.

I don't think you realise just how expensive houses are in most of the UK compared to other countries.

The median US price is currently about $220,000, which is about 120,000 pounds. Certainly there are very highly priced areas such as California and some North-East cities, but there are also large areas where prices are very low. In Texas you can get a fairly new 4-bedroom ensuite detached home in a good suburb in any of the cities for under 100,000 pounds, and the smaller towns are cheaper.

Where I live (Canberra, Australia) price levels are about mid way between the US and UK, and Canberra is the second or third most expensive city in Oz. A 4-bedroom ensuite detached with double garage would cost me about 180,000 pounds.

[Catch22]

Select the image ... Ctrl-C ... go to notepad ... Ctrl-V ... save as personal/rant.txt for future use

That one's too good not to steal .

or even quicker "right click" ............"save image as" .......

Edited January 6, 2006 by Catch22

[zorn]

I don't think you realise just how expensive houses are in most of the UK compared to other countries.

The median US price is currently about $220,000, which is about 120,000 pounds. Certainly there are very highly priced areas such as California and some North-East cities, but there are also large areas where prices are very low. In Texas you can get a fairly new 4-bedroom ensuite detached home in a good suburb in any of the cities for under 100,000 pounds, and the smaller towns are cheaper.

Where I live (Canberra, Australia) price levels are about mid way between the US and UK, and Canberra is the second or third most expensive city in Oz. A 4-bedroom ensuite detached with double garage would cost me about 180,000 pounds.

What are the population densities of Australia, Texas and England? I think you'll find that England's is well over 10 times higher than Texas or Australia -- and it makes a difference.

[OnlyMe]

Cracks me up every time this argument is put forward - the whole point of what the bear view is trying to say is that current and previous actions in promoting and continuing an artificaial asset boom is that it is highly damaging and destabilising and that it should be curtailed. What is sadi here wil have NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the eventual level of fallout - that is down to the volume of unsound/criminal lending that has gone on in the past and the effect that that has had on destroyiong people's personal finances and more importantly possibly the effect on general invesment in teh UK economy rather than an overpriced pile of bricks.

[nodumsunreader]

I don't think you realise just how expensive houses are in most of the UK compared to other countries.

The median US price is currently about $220,000, which is about 120,000 pounds. Certainly there are very highly priced areas such as California and some North-East cities, but there are also large areas where prices are very low. In Texas you can get a fairly new 4-bedroom ensuite detached home in a good suburb in any of the cities for under 100,000 pounds, and the smaller towns are cheaper.

Where I live (Canberra, Australia) price levels are about mid way between the US and UK, and Canberra is the second or third most expensive city in Oz. A 4-bedroom ensuite detached with double garage would cost me about 180,000 pounds.

But does that not reflect the one thing that causes UK house prices to be so high in the first place? Population density in both the US and Aus are a fraction of that in the UK. The US and Aus still have plenty of land for development the UK does not.

[geneer]

But does that not reflect the one thing that causes UK house prices to be so high in the first place? Population density in both the US and Aus are a fraction of that in the UK. The US and Aus still have plenty of land for development the UK does not.

not true. the uk still has an agricultural footprint. A huge majority of the UK is countryside.

Planning restrictions prevent its use, but that will change.

[Realistbear]

Who are the doom merchants that the VI's continue to site?

Apart from one Daily Mail article I cannot think of any major media player putting out a negative message on property.

Wimpey know it's all about sentiment it's obviously difficult for them with almost complete media backing that this cannot be controlled.

Don't forget our friends at the Telegraph:

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/property/mai...7/ixptop12.html

The souring of the inner-city dream has left a glut of empty, new-build apartments, affordable to few and situated in communities bereft of families. What now for the super-cool, urban living space that stands empty? Caroline McGhie reports on a post-Sipps nightmare

[Catch22]

nodumbsunreader actually thinks builders will stop building houses

Well I'll let him into a little secret, builders build house, thats what they do, that's how they earn their money. They don't stop building in housing market corrections, they just sell them for less money. Those who have any idea of the basics of supply and demand principles know this.

The builders know full well how the markets work and indeed take advantage of housing bubble spikes to fill their profits larder. However when the market becomes overbought the residential seller sits tight listening to all the VI garbbage, because what they hear is what they want to hear. The builders on the other hand start reducing prices and by the time the numpty retail sellers realise it, their house pricing is marooned 10/20% above the real market price. From then on in herd sentiment starts turning negative and the canny buyer drives the market down further still untill it becomes over sold ....and then it's all change again at some stage in the future.

Of course if NDSR actually took the time out to read the builder press statements now being realised, he would realise at what stage the market is at right now. Or he could have listened to me last summer on this site warning that " volume builders will lead prices lower" they always have in the past and they are doing so now.

I just love the way the VI's have sold the idea that the basics of "market dynamics" have all of a sudden been turned on their heads just to suit the sustaining of the "housing market bubble"

It's different this time .........................my @rse

Edited January 6, 2006 by Catch22

[BoredTrainBuilder]

Rail fare susidies have shrunk

Not correct.

The railways are now receiving vast subsidies, by some measures 3x what was occuring under the previous government. However, much of this is either genuine capital investment or else necessary to pay for fixing an accumulated maintenance backlog since the 1960s. Furthermore the railways are carrying more passengers than for 40 years.

But subsidies have not shrunk.

I doubt your other factlets stand up, either.

[dog]

Not correct.

The railways are now receiving vast subsidies, by some measures 3x what was occuring under the previous government. However, much of this is either genuine capital investment or else necessary to pay for fixing an accumulated maintenance backlog since the 1960s. Furthermore the railways are carrying more passengers than for 40 years.

But subsidies have not shrunk.

I doubt your other factlets stand up, either.

Wrong! The transport minister (Derek Twigg) explained on radio 4 today how subsidies are being reduced. Have a listen for yourself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/it...06_01_fri.shtml

If the railways are carrying so many more passengers, why do we have to fund their investment? As a chap phoning in to Radio 4 aptly put it "If Tescos, want to build a new superstore, they don't charge their customers extra to pay for the investment"

Since the railways are carrying more people, they should use some of the extra income to provide a service that is better than disgusting. People have stand crushed together on journeys lasting an hour or more.

Just wait and see the effect on the economy if in the unlikely effect that this site does achieve it's aims and destroy the economy. You think things are bad now - you aint seen nothin yet.

The economy is in trouble (I believe serious trouble). Why not put the blame where it should be. There has been no economic miracle, just a house bubble funded by public and private debt.

Edited January 6, 2006 by dog

[BoredTrainBuilder]

Wrong! The transport minister (Derek Twigg) explained on radio 4 today how subsidies are being reduced. Have a listen for yourself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/it...06_01_fri.shtml

If the railways are carrying so many more passengers, why do we have to fund their investment? As a chap phoning in to Radio 4 aptly put it "If Tescos, want to build a new superstore, they don't charge their customers extra to pay for the investment"

Since the railways are carrying more people, they should use some of the extra income to provide a service that is better than disgusting. People have stand crushed together on journeys lasting an hour or more.

The economy is in trouble (I believe serious trouble). Why not put the blame where it should be. There has been no economic miracle, just a house bubble funded by public and private debt.

I work in the industry as you may have deduced from my name. Believe me, the railways of the country are receiving barrowloads of cash, more than ever before, although there are good reasons for this as I said. The government is taking steps to pare back expenditure in future but it will still be getting lots more, for the foreseeable future, than it did in the 1970s/80s/90s.

Ridership on the UK system is growing far faster than pretty anywhere else in the world. This is one reason why fares can rise faster than inflation, as they have for years, to reflect the costs involved. For railway infrastructure these costs are immense. This is true all over the world. More of this cost is recovered from farebox in the UK than typically is elsewhere. Another benefit of higher fares is that it helps deal with capacity problems. There are capacity issues all over the network, especially in the south east. These will be vastly expensive to overcome.

Overcrowded trains despite very high fares is of course evidence of a vibrant economy more than anything else. If you've got a better solution to rail overcrowding, on SWT, the Tube or at London Bridge, for example, let's have it.

[BuyingBear]

I work in the industry as you may have deduced from my name. Believe me, the railways of the country are receiving barrowloads of cash, more than ever before, although there are good reasons for this as I said. The government is taking steps to pare back expenditure in future but it will still be getting lots more, for the foreseeable future, than it did in the 1970s/80s/90s.

The man is right! NetworkRail now have hidden debts of over £17 billion that aren't included in government figures because the ONS bent over backwards for Brown and his cooking abilities, but the liabilities are those of the government and no one else. This is before you include further subsidies to operating companies or major projects like the Channel Tunnel Rail Link or Crossrail that have or will be totally bailed out by government, then we have things like the PPP for the tube which will suck up in excess of £1b each year and now of course we have the olympics.

By comparison the rise in national insurance a while back raised £8.5b, that's what they spend on rail each year, it's the around same as they spend on the road network which carries 93% of all passenger traffic and just as much freight traffic. Rail spending is growing faster with the roads budget static or falling in real terms. Only 15% of tax generated from the roads is spend on the network, by comparison the rail network has more money thrown at it from government for just 7% of the passengers.

So, should most people care about 50 pence being added to a rail ticket? I don't think so, 2p of their income tax is already spent their way. They could quadruple fares overnight but that still wouldn't be enough to sustain the network if all the handouts were taken away.

[munro]

Forget Adam Smith, just open the window. Gordon Brown's policy of stealth tax has created record taxation. Added to this, the quality and scope of public services has collapsed:

<--snip-->

The list goes on. For me it is not an idealogical issue. It is just a fact of life that public servants generally lack the skill or motivation to spend public funds wisely. Unfortunately Gordon Brown thinks he knows best and through his incompetance he has lost us 1 million manufacturing jobs and pushed public spending is out of control.

The thing is, Dog, public servants handle public money and as such they have to work to higher standards of probity than the private sector. People are vastly more sensitive to waste and mistakes when it's taxpayers' money rather than private companies. Just imagine what would have been said if Marconi had been a public sector organisation.

And - it IS an ideological issue. Ultimately the decisions made on where and how to spend money are made by politicians. Sure Blair and co are obsessed with high-tech and think ludicrous computer solutions are the answer, and yes, this is aggravated by generally weak procurement skills in the public sector. But a lot of it comes from politicians who are over-impressed by private sector consultants who promise more than they know they can deliver and then rip us all off. BTW I'm not a public sector worker. It's just that these sorts of arguments are too simplistic - forget "Yes, Minister", accept that there are large numbers of people in the public sector who want to do a good job and are often in the public sector because they believe in the services the public sector provides, and realise that we have a bunch of spineless politicians who are overly impressed by the private sector and are screwing lots of things up by obsessive micro-management and target regimes that would warm the cockles of any true red old-style Soviet central planner.

[BuyingBear]

The thing is, Dog, public servants handle public money and as such they have to work to higher standards of probity than the private sector. People are vastly more sensitive to waste and mistakes when it's taxpayers' money rather than private companies. Just imagine what would have been said if Marconi had been a public sector organisation.

Even Marconi makes CSA look professional and forthright.

In the private sector you actually face the consequences of not meeting fiduciary responsibilities.

[munro]

The CSA is a fiasco because politicians made rotten decisions. After looking at the Australian system, which generally works because it is seen to be fair, the Conservatives came up with a system that appalled everybody who'd had anything to do with designing and implementing the Australian system. I gather they couldn't believe the stupidity of the British politicians who oversaw setting up the CSA. And sure enough, it doesn't work and is widely detested...and Labour have failed to fix it because they see it as a nice little earner for the Treasury, towards single parents on benefits, and not as a way of supporting kids. Not like Marconi at all, where the senior execs screwed it up by themselves, the management of the CSA have to do what govt ministers tell them to.

As for fiduciary duty, again it rests with politicians - who are supposed to resign if they screw up. As if. Of course any civil servant caught with their hand in the till should be prosecuted, but the real scandal over public money is moronic decisions by politicians; and the micro-management obsession of Blair et al is incredibly destructive in all sorts of ways. It certainly serves to destroy any real possibility of entrepreneurial service delivery in the public sector.

[dog]

BoredTrainBuilder

Ridership on the UK system is growing far faster than pretty anywhere else in the world. This is one reason why fares can rise faster than inflation, as they have for years, to reflect the costs involved.

More passengers equals more revenue. You speak as if these extra passengers are travelling for free. The train companies should be using some of this extra revenue to make life less beastly for the poor travellers.

Overcrowded trains despite very high fares is of course evidence of a vibrant economy more than anything else. If you've got a better solution to rail overcrowding, on SWT, the Tube or at London Bridge, for example, let's have it.

We have overcrowded trains because there are not enough trains. I have no idea what a 'vibrant' economy is but if you are suggesting that things are going well, you are deluding yourself. The reason that so many people are getting onto trains is that we have the highest fuel tax in the world and some of the worst road congestion in the world. Our governments and public services seem utterly incapable of planning ahead. All they care about is new ways of taking money from us. Just look at Ken Livingstones little road scheme. He has made a pile of money from the congestion tax and Oxford street have lost 20% of their customers.

The train companies are not even trying. Thameslink runs 4 carriage trains instead of 8 carriage trains to save money. They have increased their journey times to make it easier to hit reliability targets. Many companies are reducing the number of journeys. The train companies are an abomination and the worst type of private monopoly. The ticket pricing is ridiculous. On my old route into London, it was cheaper to travel by taxi if there were three passengers. On longer distances, trains are vastly more expensive than air travel. This is ridiculous.

Munro

The thing is, Dog, public servants handle public money and as such they have to work to higher standards of probity than the private sector. People are vastly more sensitive to waste and mistakes when it's taxpayers' money rather than private companies. Just imagine what would have been said if Marconi had been a public sector organisation.

And - it IS an ideological issue. Ultimately the decisions made on where and how to spend money are made by politicians. Sure Blair and co are obsessed with high-tech and think ludicrous computer solutions are the answer, and yes, this is aggravated by generally weak procurement skills in the public sector. But a lot of it comes from politicians who are over-impressed by private sector consultants who promise more than they know they can deliver and then rip us all off. BTW I'm not a public sector worker. It's just that these sorts of arguments are too simplistic - forget "Yes, Minister", accept that there are large numbers of people in the public sector who want to do a good job and are often in the public sector because they believe in the services the public sector provides, and realise that we have a bunch of spineless politicians who are overly impressed by the private sector and are screwing lots of things up by obsessive micro-management and target regimes that would warm the cockles of any true red old-style Soviet central planner.

Unfortunately, public servants do not work to higher standards of probity. Sadly the very opposite is true. Just look at their massive overstaffing and appalling record on everything they touch (Dome, Nimrod, DHS computer, land disposals, pass port office computer, Scottish Parliament, British Museum upgrade), the list is endless. Someone on radio 4 recently said the problem stemmed from arrogance within the senior ranks of the civil service. He said that civil servants even within the treasury refuse point blank to follow even the most basic of accounting disciplines. They treat tax revenue like a pot of gold to spend how and where they like. The problem is not ideallogical. It is simply a case of people not doing their jobs in a professional manner.

I think the civil service have grown far too large and grabbed far too much power over the last 30 years.

[winkie]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/hou...5&in_page_id=57

Tax at record levels. Private debt at record levels. House prices at record levels. Is that the cause of Wimpey's woes? Apparantly not. It seems HPC are to blame.

So it's all our fault, not a doom merchant, just a realist.

[ajh]

What are the population densities of Australia, Texas and England? I think you'll find that England's is well over 10 times higher than Texas or Australia -- and it makes a difference.

I should have made it clearer that I was objecting to NoDumSunReader's contention that local and foreign investors would automatically flood into the market to pick up the bargains if there were 50-60% price falls.

I don't believe foreigner investors would flood in, because even after that sort of fall UK houses would still be expensive compared to most of the rest of the world. That's why I quoted those examples.

[apom]

Forget Adam Smith, just open the window. Gordon Brown's policy of stealth tax has created record taxation. Added to this, the quality and scope of public services has collapsed:

Toll roads are springing up

Many parents find themselves having to serve as unpaid class helpers

Class sizes are rising every year

Free dental treatment has virtually dissapeared

Many types of operation have been made chargeable

Prescription charges are at record levels

Hospital car parks can charge as much as £5 a visit

Hospital telephone charges are a scam

Rail fare susidies have shrunk

Police stations are closing all over the country

It takes up to three days for the police to turn up

Hospitals are closing beds

The list goes on. For me it is not an idealogical issue. It is just a fact of life that public servants generally lack the skill or motivation to spend public funds wisely. Unfortunately Gordon Brown thinks he knows best and through his incompetance he has lost us 1 million manufacturing jobs and pushed public spending is out of control.

Hospital car parks charging.. superb I thought.. I used to work for them as an IT contractor.. 6 months of the lowest salary I have earned in years so that I could put one of the best entries onto my CV that I could imagine..

That said I was driving occaisionally onto various sites and I struggled to stop so that I could actually do my job.. Have I been spoiled by car parks at every other job I have had? I think so..

do I have a relevent point? I do..

Taxes are up, council tax has increased, pensions are being taxed, road taxes have exploded to penalise my car as it is not environmentally sensilbe..

the National innsurance stamps that your employer pays for you has gone up. and trust me, your cost to your company are your taxes...

people rioted when they thought that they would have to pay the poll tax.. but we stand still as council tax doubles... to watch pensioners allow themselves to be imprisoned in dignified protest... My hero was that old dear from devon who allowed herself to be sent to jail, only refusing to pay the rise in her tax that she deemed unfair.

all taxes should be on income. and the gathered just once. not many times from many different sources.

then we would know how much we pay..

and when you look at it, it should be enough.

Edited January 7, 2006 by apom

[CrashIsUnderWay]

vibrant economy? kn0bend. India had legendary train overcrowding for the last 100 years (and still has). Care to go and live there on £20 a month, dog?

train overcrowding is because - >gasp< there aren't enough frikkin trains. If u can get by with £100 bill of capital costs and a few p1ssed off commuters, your shareholders will love you far more than if you keep all your passengers in 1st class luxury, but have to spvnk another £100 bill on it. Same number of passenger, same number of journeys, half the capital investment. get it?

No. Probably not.

[Marina]

It was still higher than it is now in 1990, when Thatcher had been in power for eleven years. How long does it take to clean up the mess from a previous government that was only in power for five years?

It is going to take a damn site longer than 5 years to clear up the mess this lot have made.

A million jobs lost in manufacturing replaced by a million jobs in public services.

vibrant economy? kn0bend. India had legendary train overcrowding for the last 100 years (and still has). Care to go and live there on £20 a month, dog?

train overcrowding is because - >gasp< there aren't enough frikkin trains. If u can get by with £100 bill of capital costs and a few p1ssed off commuters, your shareholders will love you far more than if you keep all your passengers in 1st class luxury, but have to spvnk another £100 bill on it. Same number of passenger, same number of journeys, half the capital investment. get it?

No. Probably not.

Its a well known fact that Indians like togetherness. I have seen half empty trains in India where people will refuse to board them. They would rather wait for a full one so they can hop up on the roof and enjoy a bit of fresh air in the baking heat.

[BoredTrainBuilder]

We have overcrowded trains because there are not enough trains. I have no idea what a 'vibrant' economy is but if you are suggesting that things are going well, you are deluding yourself. The reason that so many people are getting onto trains is that we have the highest fuel tax in the world and some of the worst road congestion in the world. Our governments and public services seem utterly incapable of planning ahead. All they care about is new ways of taking money from us. Just look at Ken Livingstones little road scheme. He has made a pile of money from the congestion tax and Oxford street have lost 20% of their customers.

In one paragraph you manage to condense a lot of the willful ignorance that hinders transport policy development, very often fanned by the willfully ignorant tabloid newspapers.

1) There is no shortage of trains, the capacity constraints on the rail networks are infrastructure-based

2) You complain about congested roads (despite high fuel tax), berate politicians for not planning ahead and then go on to condemn central London congestion charging - a truly mixed-up world view, sloppy thinking that is commonplace unfortunately

3) Ken Livingstone is not making any money from congestion charging, any surplus is used to fund public transport (although, becuase the charge has been effective in reducing traffic and costs are higher than planned, revenues are lower than expected)

4) Many academic studies have been made to try to ascertain the impact of the charge on retail businesses and most show a small to negligible impact, now diminishing with time. 20%? Where did you get that from?

vibrant economy? kn0bend. India had legendary train overcrowding for the last 100 years (and still has). Care to go and live there on £20 a month, dog?

train overcrowding is because - >gasp< there aren't enough frikkin trains. If u can get by with £100 bill of capital costs and a few p1ssed off commuters, your shareholders will love you far more than if you keep all your passengers in 1st class luxury, but have to spvnk another £100 bill on it. Same number of passenger, same number of journeys, half the capital investment. get it?

No. Probably not.

What?

Edited January 7, 2006 by BoredTrainBuilder

[dog]

In one paragraph you manage to condense a lot of the willful ignorance that hinders transport policy development, very often fanned by the willfully ignorant tabloid newspapers.

1) There is no shortage of trains, the capacity constraints on the rail networks are infrastructure-based

2) You complain about congested roads (despite high fuel tax), berate politicians for not planning ahead and then go on to condemn central London congestion charging - a truly mixed-up world view, sloppy thinking that is commonplace unfortunately

3) Ken Livingstone is not making any money from congestion charging, any surplus is used to fund public transport (although, becuase the charge has been effective in reducing traffic and costs are higher than planned, revenues are lower than expected)

4) Many academic studies have been made to try to ascertain the impact of the charge on retail businesses and most show a small to negligible impact, now diminishing with time. 20%? Where did you get that from?

What?

The voice of defeat from an industry addicted to handouts.

[BoredTrainBuilder]

The voice of defeat from an industry addicted to handouts.

I'm not speaking for any industry, just correcting your factual errors.