London, the property safe haven

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

Sell Note

U.K. may be the next Venezuela.

Prudent investors in U.K. property would do well to sell up now before accumulating further losses and as a matter of necessity must exit the market well ahead of the arrival of a future U.K. Government led by Prime Minister in waiting Mr Jeremy Corbyn. The U.K. has been struggling of late due to self imposed trade limitations and inflation created by Brexit; and following a recent fire in a U.K. residential tower block where upto 100 people may have died as a result of poor quality construction standards, the mood in the country is turning ugly. Expect potential state led property seizures from as early as October when we forecast there may well be a new general election.

[thisisthisitmaybe]

2 hours ago, reddog said:

My personal opinion is, if you buy a property, you should be able to do exactly what you want with it.  Whether it is leaving it empty or not.

 

I do find it funny though that people from around the world bought London property without researching how stable Britain really was.  Surely they must have seen dodgy council estates only a stones throw away from their multiple million pound investment.  Did they not think those people could turn on them?  You would have thought the 2011 riots would be a clue.

You are spot on, some basic research would have revealed all is not well in the kingdom. But there were too many "tempters" such as a government (esp under Blair and Cameron) which fawned over foreign money, the "history" where the country hadn't had a revolution for 360 years, London as a, if not the, "Global City", and last but not least, groupthink and following the (moneylaundering) crowd.

This is starting to feel like the Summer of Revolution. "Revolution" is a term which is used too loosely in general, but it means what was thought impossible suddenly happens, such as empty million-pound London property being requisitioned by the state and given out to the poor.

One more time for The Good Old Cause!

 

[BorrowToLeech]

4 hours ago, reddog said:

My personal opinion is, if you buy a property, you should be able to do exactly what you want with it.  Whether it is leaving it empty or not.

If sally pays tom £500k for a sign saying 'private land - keep out', why should I give a shit? 

What has any of that got to do with me?  

The point is that land is not a kind of property at all, it is something else. The reason we call it 'property' is purely political.

It's an attempt to reinforce the feudal belief that ruling land is somehow the same as owning a spade.

The feudals also used to believe in dog-men and witches, but we've mostly moved on from that stuff now. Mostly. 

In reality, exclusive use of land is an ongoing agreement with everyone else who might use it.

No one should be able to impose such agreements on the rest of us, and if they severely disadvangage the majority, they should be torn up. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by DrBuyToLeech

[reddog]

37 minutes ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

If sally pays tom £500k for a sign saying 'private land - keep out', why should I give a shit? 

What has any of that got to do with me?  

The point is that land is not a kind of property at all, it is something else. The reason we call it 'property' is purely political.

It's an attempt to reinforce the feudal belief that ruling land is somehow the same as owning a spade.

The feudals also used to believe in dog-men and witches, but we've mostly moved on from that stuff now. Mostly. 

In reality, exclusive use of land is an ongoing agreement with everyone else who might use it.

No one should be able to impose such agreements on the rest of us, and if they severely disadvangage the majority, they should be torn up. 

The right to own thing's is fundamental to a stable growing economy.  If the government can requestion your house, they can also requestion your savings and other possessions.

 

Why would you ever both to do anything productive if the government can just take it??!!  Scary times

Edited June 17, 2017 by reddog

[Toast]

1 hour ago, reddog said:

The right to own thing's is fundamental to a stable growing economy.  If the government can requestion your house, they can also requestion your savings and other possessions.

 

Why would you ever both to do anything productive if the government can just take it??!!  Scary times

I agree that strong property rights are necessary in a stable capitalist economy, and are in general highly desirable.

1 hour ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

If sally pays tom £500k for a sign saying 'private land - keep out', why should I give a shit? 

However, as DrBuyToLeech says (and I don't agree with exact sentence quoted), it is more nuanced than that, and there have always been restrictions on property rights. One does not have the right to cause a nuisance to neighbours, for example, if one owns land. In general, restrictions on property owners' rights are the result of a compromise between landowners and society at large, so ultimately come down to balances of power.

There was a very relevant piece of case law from the 19th century, which I'm struggling to find. My recollection of it is that a crew of fisherment were out on a loch when a storm rolled in. They wanted to make landfall at a jetty owned by someone else, but the landowner refused, leading to the some of the fishermen drowning. Charges were brought, and the landowner claimed that since it was his land, he could refuse access to whomever he chose, for whatever reason he cared. In a land-mark decision, the court ruled that refusing access to your own land was not an absolute right, but could be limited under certain circumstances.

If someone could find the relevant ruling, it would reassure me (or otherwise) that the old memory isn't falling to pieces.

[reddog]

3 minutes ago, Toast said:

I agree that strong property rights are necessary in a stable capitalist economy, and are in general highly desirable.

However, as DrBuyToLeech says (and I don't agree with exact sentence quoted), it is more nuanced than that, and there have always been restrictions on property rights. One does not have the right to cause a nuisance to neighbours, for example, if one owns land. In general, restrictions on property owners' rights are the result of a compromise between landowners and society at large, so ultimately come down to balances of power.

There was a very relevant piece of case law from the 19th century, which I'm struggling to find. My recollection of it is that a crew of fisherment were out on a loch when a storm rolled in. They wanted to make landfall at a jetty owned by someone else, but the landowner refused, leading to the some of the fishermen drowning. Charges were brought, and the landowner claimed that since it was his land, he could refuse access to whomever he chose, for whatever reason he cared. In a land-mark decision, the court ruled that refusing access to your own land was not an absolute right, but could be limited under certain circumstances.

If someone could find the relevant ruling, it would reassure me (or otherwise) that the old memory isn't falling to pieces.

Ok, I agree with that to a certain extent.  For example, if you stop paying property taxes on a house you own, you will see who really owns it.

 

But the bar to having your property taken off you is fairly high.  The fact that we are even discussing the rights and wrongs of having a property you are not living in at the moment confiscated shows how f00ked we are.

[Toast]

8 minutes ago, reddog said:

But the bar to having your property taken off you is fairly high.  The fact that we are even discussing the rights and wrongs of having a property you are not living in at the moment confiscated shows how f00ked we are.

I agree: it would be pretty unprecedented, and a bad thing.

If there were a widespread emergency and people needed local shelter immediately, as a matter of life and death, then I think (see above) existing case law would allow them to requisition the blocks of flats (and rightly so); but for the government to this without such immediate necessity would be shocking and could be seen as the start of a "slippery slope".

Thinking about it further, however, compulsory purchase orders exist and are often used, which represent a strong limitation on the abolute rights of owners. Also (and I don't know the current state of the law), there used to be squatters' rights which tolerated individuals using unoccupied property for shelter.

[Venger]

4 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Sell Note

U.K. may be the next Venezuela.

 

Sense you are deliberately overdoing it for some effect... but you make the important point that system can go through a sudden change.

There is a change-point where mistake upon mistake upon mistake (also seen as wisdom by many), including perhaps rentierism to extremes, BTL  could begins to weight down and force sudden change.   I don't think we have anything to fear from a correction, if handled properly, and politics doesn't veer off.  

More that we wiil have opportunity.  How could we not when my elderly landlord has spent 20 years kicking back, seeing value of his 5 BTL/homes x4, worth £2m+.   HPC and those homes falling to renter-savers/upsavers who have just worked and saved and rented against HPI for 10+ years, trying to scratch up some deposit against it all to buy in the future.  What is to fear there?  

Although I can't do anything for the 30s couple who bought an apartment 5 years ago (£375K) and have signed up to buy a new apartment £1m+ offplan, and are hoping for more HPI in next few years while new complex is built, and intend to sell their own apartment in a few years.  The 'beginning of innocence' claimers/pushers for such people, cause more damage than the HPIers and BTLers, urging a view that they are victims.  If they are protected, as they would like with no stomach for HPC, then wider market for HPIers and BTLers gets protected for prices/values to be supported.

Wherever prosperity exists, many people expect prosperity to always continue.... For this reason, much of the history of human society is a record of astonishment.

Quote

The general conclusion is that wealth and power have never been long permanent in any place....and that they travel over the face of the earth, something like a caravan of merchants. On their arrival everything is found green and fresh; while they remain all is bustle and abundance, and, when they are gone, all is left trampled down, barren and bare.

-William Playfair,

An Enquiry into the Permanent Causes of the Decline and Fall of Powerful and Wealthy Nations, 1805

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Venger

[BorrowToLeech]

2 hours ago, reddog said:

The right to own thing's is fundamental to a stable growing economy.  If the government can requestion your house, they can also requestion your savings and other possessions.

 

Why would you ever both to do anything productive if the government can just take it??!!  Scary times

The right to own a thing, yes. 

The right to make me do something, no. 

Land is the latter, not the former. 

Of course, it's more complicated than that. A house, for example, is a thing. 

The point is firstly that we should say what we mean, and not hide behind cliches like 'property'.

How should we allocate land is a reasonable question.  'Treat it as if it was stuff that can be owned' is, in my opinion, a bad answer (And actually, it's such a bad answer that in practice we don't fully treat it that way). 

Secondly to think about why we use the word 'property' unqualified to describe land.  We say it without thinking, but it is very odd.

I just bought a lever-arch folder, I have acquired property. I am a property owner.  Except, not really. 

To some extent this is just estate agent ********. Land becomes property, then house becomes property, then flat becomes apartment.  However the land becomes property part is not coincidental it's entirely deliberate, and goes back centuries.  It happens because landowners talk about land in this way, they have done for centuries.  They have power and influence, and no one calls them on it, so people start to ape their language.

It has the effect, intentionally, of making it difficult to discuss properly exactly this sort of issue.  It becomes harder to even think about the issue, because we lack the words.   

It also gives landowners an immediate excuse, 'you can't stop me doing X because it's my property'.

Well, slaves were property once, as were wives.  In the past 'property' has been used as an excuse to confiscate the land of peasants or natives.

Clearly 'property' is a flexible category of thing, that has been used to justify all manner of behaviour.

As it happens I think Corbyn is wrong in practice.  It's heavy handed, it won't help the victims of the fire, and it damages the argument for sensible incremental reform. 

However, the idea that members of the Chinese communist party now have some kind of a right to bits of Kensington, because they made payments to former members of the soviet communist party, is nonsense.  

Furthermore the idea that this is critical to the economy is about as wrong as anything can be. The opposite of that is true. 

Edited June 17, 2017 by DrBuyToLeech

[Democorruptcy]

2 hours ago, reddog said:

The right to own thing's is fundamental to a stable growing economy.  If the government can requestion your house, they can also requestion your savings and other possessions.

 

Why would you ever both to do anything productive if the government can just take it??!!  Scary times

The governbankment have been unofficially taking savings since rates were reduced in 2008. Say £10k for 10 years at 6% returns about £9k, at 2% it's about £2k. So £7k plus compound interest on that missing from accounts. They plan to take them more officially in the future via bail-ins. 

 

[Venger]

There are some posts out there claiming Corbyn has been misrepresented about this by the press.

I don't know the facts of the matter about that (although would not surprise me) for it all is one very upsetting situation that I can only read of a little bit at a time, and needs cool heads and careful review.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[thisisthisitmaybe]

2 hours ago, reddog said:

The right to own thing's is fundamental to a stable growing economy.  If the government can requestion your house, they can also requestion your savings and other possessions.

 

Why would you ever both to do anything productive if the government can just take it??!!  Scary times

Most people dont own their homes. The banks do.

[Venger]

1 minute ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

Most people dont own their homes. The banks do.

That's just what those who want to protect the HPI keep pushing.

And swallowed up by those who see homeowner victims everywhere, instead of what I see.... owners sat on Multi £Trillions in Housing Asset Wealth, that they can sell back to cash if they chose to.   Although very few can get out at top whack in a market imo, and when some owners begin to accept much lower prices, brings down the mad-gainz for other homeowners (that many HPCers hold as the innocents).

 

 

[BorrowToLeech]

10 minutes ago, Democorruptcy said:

The governbankment have been unofficially taking savings since rates were reduced in 2008. Say £10k for 10 years at 6% returns about £9k, at 2% it's about £2k. So £7k plus compound interest on that missing from accounts. They plan to take them more officially in the future via bail-ins. 

 

This (bail ins) is a really good example of how property is a poorly defined notion, that hides a great deal of complexity

The common view is that your cash in the Bank is your property. It isn't, it's a loan to the Bank. 

So deciding what is and what isn't property, and exactly what that means, isn't obvious at all.

 

[TheCountOfNowhere]

13 hours ago, reddog said:

My personal opinion is, if you buy a property, you should be able to do exactly what you want with it.  Whether it is leaving it empty or not.

 

 

Ten years ago i'd have agreed, but after a decade of money printing, forced tax payer support, mass immigration, robbed savings and wages all to support house prices and the rich men's asset prices...id say we all have a stake in any property bailed out directly or indirectly and if they are not being used as a home, in this time if crisis, they should be put up for auction and the investor forced to sell 

 

Fairness in society is a prerequisite for society to exist.

[flb]

Lol, Corbyn.

That bloke will die having never seen one ounce of power.

[BorrowToLeech]

Want a loony mentalist!

Imagine governments requisitioning private housing!  Lol

What does he think this is? An Olympics?  It's not even a high speed railway!

Look Jeremy, some people were on fire, we get that, but most of the survivors weren't on fire at all.

This is not a time to start having a go at our heroic property speculators.  The amount of blood money they launder, seriously, those guys are the real heroes.

[thisisthisitmaybe]

23 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

This (bail ins) is a really good example of how property is a poorly defined notion, that hides a great deal of complexity

The common view is that your cash in the Bank is your property. It isn't, it's a loan to the Bank. 

So deciding what is and what isn't property, and exactly what that means, isn't obvious at all.

 

Exactly. We are approaching a period in which people will go to the atm and find there is no cash.

The gov will step in but you could be looking at two months of not being able to draw cash, or use your flexible friend.

My advice is to draw 2k out in advance and stash under the mattress to get by in the interim.

And buy some gold for the longer term.

[Elative]

On 16/06/2017 at 9:01 AM, TheCountOfNowhere said:

"He added in a Parliamentary debate: "It cannot be acceptable that in London you have luxury buildings and flats kept as land banking for the future while the homeless and poor look for somewhere to live.""

 

The tider is turning, when the empty Chinese own flats are taken from them, we might well see a war.

This was one of the first things communists did in countries they took over after WWII. History likes to repeat itself.

[reddog]

10 minutes ago, Elative said:

This was one of the first things communists did in countries they took over after WWII. History likes to repeat itself.

Exactly, this is big news, Corbyn actually incited on live tv, people to break into what they consider to be unoccupied homes, not really getting enough coverage.

 

Also is the house being empty the only criteria for 'requisition', could the next step be for one person living in a 3 bedroom house being forced to take in a family?

 

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by reddog

[Elative]

2 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

2017 General Election results;

Theresa May (Conservative)

13,667,213

Jeremy Corbyn (Labour)

12,874,985

Labour were only 792,228 votes behind the Tories. They had millions more votes than Labour under Miliband and more votes than Labour received when it won with Tony Blair in 1997. This is all with the backdrop of the press completely ripping Corbyn apart since he became Labour leader. I think it is very possible that he could be Prime Minister one day.

 

Isn't it funny how when brexit/leavers won on the basis of alleged "lies" and unfounded promises media and the whole of left side of the scene were screaming outrage and demanding another referendum, yet when labour did the same (i.e. based their campaign on populist ideas that will never materialise and telling people what they want to hear in order to gain votes) it's seen as a victory of human kind.

[crashmonitor]

On Saturday, June 17, 2017 at 1:47 PM, reddog said:

The right to own thing's is fundamental to a stable growing economy.  If the government can requestion your house, they can also requestion your savings and other possessions.

 

Why would you ever both to do anything productive if the government can just take it??!!  Scary times

Yuri returned  to his Moscow home to find it requisitioned by the Bolsheviks and under the occupation of 13 families. 

Meanwhile your attitude has been noted, oh yes it has been noted.

( Dr Zhivago)

 

Edited June 18, 2017 by crashmonitor