Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
mh0703

This bloke for PM

Recommended Posts

Collaborative vs combative

Unfortunately, the State is foundationally combative. The definition of a State involves taking from some groups at force and giving to others. If you want a collaborative society, the only answer is the free market.

Who doesn't want their children to be safe and happy?

R-selected populations.

Housing benefit going to LL

Yep, it's distorting the market. Abolish it. Yet he won't say it directly.

Fiscal stimulus

Never works. Will fail.

Raiding Pension funds

Lol, because that has always turned out so well. 

"Bricks and mortar will always be there

HAHAHAHAHA

Close tax loopholes

If it were simple, they wold have done it already. Additionally, the state of the economy depends on the structure of the "loopholes". Changing them will at best cause massive turmoil (which, as I understand that taxation is theft, I am not averse to, but as a tax and spend socialist, this guy probably fears) and at worst collapse large sections of it.

 

Lots of Leftoid bloviating & buzzwords with no identification of the fundamental rot, which is State intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He makes a lot more sense than Boris Johnson. In fact, I'd go so far as to venture that a nationwide program of general needs social housing is now the only thing that will save Britain from national bankruptcy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

He makes a lot more sense than Boris Johnson. In fact, I'd go so far as to venture that a nationwide program of general needs social housing is now the only thing that will save Britain from national bankruptcy.

++++++++ 1

Why anybody thinks the right wing is going to save this place after 40 years of neo-liberal b*llocks is beyond me. Beat me, beat me more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zugzwang said:

He makes a lot more sense than Boris Johnson. In fact, I'd go so far as to venture that a nationwide program of general needs social housing is now the only thing that will save Britain from national bankruptcy.

Since when did Boris ever care about social housing.....Boris only cares about Boris (and his mates)......tons of charisma, great entertainment value......nice but naughty, front page of papers every day, not for the right reasons.....not exactly PM material....😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Great stuff, A1

But I have heard it all on here, and in the nicest of ways this nice man is saying what c***s landlords and the BTL industry are, and how perverse it is to give these people tens of Billions every year out of taxpayers money, that is a big one with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The free marketers are the first to want market freedom until they are burnt, then they bleat for state help - Bailouts, TLS, HTB.

I want Venger armed with a flamethrower :) for PM

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised anyone would agree with this.

Local government pensions are looking for yields close to 10% every year ad infinitum, so housing benefit would need to rise equivalently, putting an effective floor under current bubble prices. He didn't find £258bn anywhere, that money represents an asset that's already tied to a far greater liability.

At the beginning he equates self-worth with being able to buy an iPhone 26, and says he'd like to give people more self-worth. To move from that to leveraging the local government pension pot to lock in endless housing benefit raises is fairly cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, darkmarket said:

Surprised anyone would agree with this.

Local government pensions are looking for yields close to 10% every year ad infinitum, so housing benefit would need to rise equivalently, putting an effective floor under current bubble prices. He didn't find £258bn anywhere, that money represents an asset that's already tied to a far greater liability.

At the beginning he equates self-worth with being able to buy an iPhone 26, and says he'd like to give people more self-worth. To move from that to leveraging the local government pension pot to lock in endless housing benefit raises is fairly cynical.

Yeah, when I heard him say use local government pension funds, my first thought was "no that's not how you fund it".

We can borrow via gilts at a real terms rate of about -1.5% per year, and that borrowing then ends up being backed by the asset we've just created with that funding, meaning that we can charge low rents and still cover the coupon payments to the holders of those bonds.

At a real terms rate of -1.5% its really a no brainer on how we fund it.  Why do it in a far more expensive way if we don't have to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lurkerbelow said:

We can borrow via gilts at a real terms rate of about -1.5% per year, and that borrowing then ends up being backed by the asset we've just created with that funding, meaning that we can charge low rents and still cover the coupon payments to the holders of those bonds.

At a real terms rate of -1.5% its really a no brainer on how we fund it.  Why do it in a far more expensive way if we don't have to?

Big gamble to bet the house on low rates though, even if it must seem normal by now.

Maybe if unsustainable credit is removed and asset prices allowed to drop, industrial activity will increase anyway, all without huge state intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, darkmarket said:

Big gamble to bet the house on low rates though, even if it must seem normal by now.

Maybe if unsustainable credit is removed and asset prices allowed to drop, industrial activity will increase anyway, all without huge state intervention.

Gilt rates are fixed at the time of the borrowing.   If they rise you cut back on borrowing.

And a large increase in private sector house building would require increases borrowing anyway.   It only really changes who is doing the borrowing not that that borrowing happens.  

Oh and private sector debt levels are a far far greater issue than public sector borrowing.   Its been the great con job of the century which the Tories have pulled to convince the general public that the reality is the inverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lurkerbelow said:

Gilt rates are fixed at the time of the borrowing.   If they rise you cut back on borrowing

Then finishing such a big project might be tricky, that's all. And if it's not sustainable at rates of 4%, you'd have to justify it being wise policy.

4 minutes ago, Lurkerbelow said:

And a large increase in private sector house building would require increases borrowing anyway.   It only really changes who is doing the borrowing not that that borrowing happens. 

The taxpayer has been forced to cover a lot of failed speculation already, it'd be good if it didn't continue far beyond the inevitable HTB write-down.

5 minutes ago, Lurkerbelow said:

Oh and private sector debt levels are a far far greater issue than public sector borrowing.

That's true, and that part that'll never be paid in a higher-rate environment needs to be written down. If it were, that'd help incentivise builders to start work again after a correction.

I'm just not convinced making long-term plans based on cheap money is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/09/2018 at 13:38, Locke said:

Collaborative vs combative

Unfortunately, the State is foundationally combative. The definition of a State involves taking from some groups at force and giving to others. If you want a collaborative society, the only answer is the free market.

Markets require rules to exist. Free market in the sense that you are using it is an oxymoron. Free market was a term coined to contrast with imperial policies of mercantilism, not because of this incoherent idea of some sort of fundamental free market that is being repressed by not letting people do whatever morally repugnant things they fancy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/09/2018 at 18:56, Roman Roady said:

Yes, Jason Hunter....he is the bloke in the centre on the "three blokes in a pub" podcasts. Very good heres a couple

 

 

2m 26s ...... guy says ...."free trade agreements do not happen over night"

What he meant to say, for honesty & accuracy, is "restrictive trade agreement do not happen over night"

.......if honesty & accuracy are of importance.

 

Edited by cnick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, darkmarket said:

Then finishing such a big project might be tricky, that's all. And if it's not sustainable at rates of 4%, you'd have to justify it being wise policy.

The taxpayer has been forced to cover a lot of failed speculation already, it'd be good if it didn't continue far beyond the inevitable HTB write-down.

That's true, and that part that'll never be paid in a higher-rate environment needs to be written down. If it were, that'd help incentivise builders to start work again after a correction.

I'm just not convinced making long-term plans based on cheap money is a good idea.

All long-term plans in an industrial economy whether private or public are based around the availability of cheap money. The alternative would be to go back to living in the trees and practicing barter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, zugzwang said:

All long-term plans in an industrial economy whether private or public are based around the availability of cheap money. The alternative would be to go back to living in the trees and practicing barter.

Really? What (or who) makes money cheap? ....and why would invention / progress stop without it? ...... people investing their own honest money would certainly take bit more care over their due diligence..... False dichotomy is a term I haven't seen used here in a while..... what ever happened to injin?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/false_dichotomy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zugzwang said:

All long-term plans in an industrial economy whether private or public are based around the availability of cheap money. The alternative would be to go back to living in the trees and practicing barter.

Historically though, money this cheap hasn't been available for this long, and for good reason. Calls for huge social housing programs, and schemes to build them without undermining the market, seem partly a response to bubble prices and partly a way of incorporating them into long-term planning.

I can see a replacement rate of ~0% isn't sustainable, but as a question of sequence I'd rather see a correction before any major projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cnick said:

Really? What (or who) makes money cheap? ....and why would invention / progress stop without it? ...... people investing their own honest money would certainly take bit more care over their due diligence..... False dichotomy is a term I haven't seen used here in a while..... what ever happened to injin?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/false_dichotomy

I'd suggest that the central question in economics is how to match the money supply to the effective demand. Create too much money and you get inflation; or worse, hyperinflation. Create too little (or destroy too much) and you get deflation; or worse, a depression. Almost all money is created privately in the shadow banking system as credit derivatives or synthetic repo.

Invention/progress really does stop when the cheap money disappears. The American economist Alvin Hansen coined the term 'secular stagnation' in 1938 to describe the plight of the US economy following the Great Depression: 'a condition of zero or negligible growth in a market-based economy'. Larry Summers resurrected the phrase to describe the US economy in 2013.

1 hour ago, darkmarket said:

Historically though, money this cheap hasn't been available for this long, and for good reason. Calls for huge social housing programs, and schemes to build them without undermining the market, seem partly a response to bubble prices and partly a way of incorporating them into long-term planning.

I can see a replacement rate of ~0% isn't sustainable, but as a question of sequence I'd rather see a correction before any major projects.

A replacement rate of ~0% won't last forever, not disputing that. Tragically, we've squandered a decade and a trillion pounds of public money on a second housing bubble and a succession of insane vanity projects which have done nothing to deleverage the private sector. In fact, it's still as hopelessly underwater as it was the day Northern Rock went bust.

Edited by zugzwang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Tragically, we've squandered a decade and a trillion pounds of public money on a second housing bubble and a succession of insane vanity projects which have done nothing to deleverage the private sector. In fact, it's still as hopelessly underwater as it was the day Northern Rock went bust.

Indeed, and we don't even have a Garden Bridge to show for it, just an artist's impression after all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.