We are at the end of a slow-moving housing Ponzi scheme - David McWilliams

[Young Turk]

10 hours ago, Sour Mash said:

Same thing happening all over the Western World.  US and Canada prices/HPI even crazier than UK.  Australia and NZ likewise and also in most of Europe.

Many countries have very expensive areas. For example in the US, maybe Los Angeles and New York City are comparable to London. But I would be surprised if any medium sized country has higher average house prices. Prices are cheaper in most of the countries you mentioned for a variety of reasons (more land, less densely populated, property taxes);

They may have had bigger price increases some years, but I doubt they have caught up.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

4 hours ago, Young Turk said:

Many countries have very expensive areas. For example in the US, maybe Los Angeles and New York City are comparable to London. But I would be surprised if any medium sized country has higher average house prices. Prices are cheaper in most of the countries you mentioned for a variety of reasons (more land, less densely populated, property taxes);

They may have had bigger price increases some years, but I doubt they have caught up.

An 'uninhabitable' house without a toilet, kitchen, or power sold for $3.5 million after a heated bidding war in Australia, as people worldwide scramble to buy homes

https://www.businessinsider.com/a-sydney-house-without-a-toilet-sells-for-35m-2021-7?r=US&IR=T

 

 

[Si1]

9 hours ago, Young Turk said:

Many countries have very expensive areas.

5 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

An 'uninhabitable' house without a toilet, kitchen, or power sold for $3.5 million after a heated bidding war in Australia, as people worldwide scramble to buy homes

https://www.businessinsider.com/a-sydney-house-without-a-toilet-sells-for-35m-2021-7?r=US&IR=T

 

 

 

Anna Cooban 

Jul 1, 2021, 2:31 PM

 

 

The Sydney house as seen from the street.  Google Street View

• A Sydney house without a kitchen, toilet, or power sold for $3.5 million, a real estate agent told Bloomberg. 

[Young Turk]

6 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

An 'uninhabitable' house

 

... in an expensive area.

How do the averages compare?

[TheCountOfNowhere]

18 hours ago, Si1 said:

Sunak is about survival. In order to keep his post as chancellor he will juice house prices to the end. Expect a roaring crash in the middle of the decade. 

I cant see how it can get that far to be honest.  

The NW unaffordability graph is heading for all time highs, given we have low IRs and no end of "help" schemes this means prices are way way way beyond any stable sensible level, it's the instability that will end this.

If the market continues to grind to a halt then we are about to see the UK sub-prime bubble burst, they can't force people to borrow.

If they can get wage inflation going then maybe they can push things up more, but it really is at the expense of destroying their voters pensions/savings.  

It's now a battle to protect your savings/wages/pension while waiting for prices to collapse in real or nominal terms.

The Tories clearly will not stop with the asset price inflation, there is no sign of any change in their aims, I daresay this was Boris' intention all along, greedy fat ****.

Everyone should have bought a house in 2009 and been done with.  All we're going to get is full on systematic collapse.

It's frightening.

[Si1]

3 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

I cant see how it can get that far to be honest.  

The NW unaffordability graph is heading for all time highs, given we have low IRs and no end of "help" schemes this means prices are way way way beyond any stable sensible level, it's the instability that will end this.

If the market continues to grind to a halt then we are about to see the UK sub-prime bubble burst, they can't force people to borrow.

If they can get wage inflation going then maybe they can push things up more, but it really is at the expense of destroying their voters pensions/savings.  

It's now a battle to protect your savings/wages/pension while waiting for prices to collapse in real or nominal terms.

The Tories clearly will not stop with the asset price inflation, there is no sign of any change in their aims, I daresay this was Boris' intention all along, greedy fat ****.

Everyone should have bought a house in 2009 and been done with.  All we're going to get is full on systematic collapse.

It's frightening.

well yes. but how many years until the sandpile has this major avalanche?

[msi]

22 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

... they can't force people to borrow.
 

You wanna bet?

[TheCountOfNowhere]

7 minutes ago, msi said:

You wanna bet?

Coerce yes, force no.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

26 minutes ago, Si1 said:

well yes. but how many years until the sandpile has this major avalanche?

Who knows, but we'll all be at the bottom of it

[msi]

27 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

Coerce yes, force no.

You're splitting hairs TCON...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_omxDqwF-DI

[TheCountOfNowhere]

28 minutes ago, msi said:

You're splitting hairs TCON...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_omxDqwF-DI

Fair enough, the are giving people little or no choice, so closer to force than coerce, so will go with FORCE

 

[cnick]

3 hours ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

....... they can't force people to borrow.

 

They already are forcing poeple. They have run up debts that you are forced to underwrite.... under a threat of physical violence, should you fail to comply......they will initiate force on you, even though you have not threatened them...... of course, some would say you are free to leave, free to not work..... but the fact remains, they will initiate lethal force on you, even though you have caused no harm nor loss to them.

[A.steve]

On 06/07/2021 at 10:01, TheCountOfNowhere said:

...

they can't force people to borrow.

...

While I recognise the erudite debate between the labels 'coerced' and 'forced'... I think a more interesting debate would deal with the harder philosophical question:  Is it possible to coerce or force anyone to borrow?

Perhaps, if the borrower is not adamant that they are freely entering into the arrangement, the arrangement has no legitimacy?  If the agreement has no legitimacy, then neither does the debt.  So... how might we establish that the arrangement was one sought by the borrower and willingly entered into?  Do we have to demonstrate that the borrower had 'Free Will'?  If so, then we're in a heap of trouble... How could we ever even begin to reason about whether such a thing as 'Free Will' even exists? Might we all be nothing more than meaty machines reacting to our environment?

Whenever I think about this, I find myself struggling to justify the western premise that debt must be absolute/real.  Sure, we'd be in a sorry state if feckless "borrowers" felt they were entitled to just keep anything they borrowed.  Similarly, however, I think we're in a mess if the lender takes no meaningful risk when making a loan.  Neither extreme seems satisfactory.

If debts were not 'absolute', but placed symmetric responsibility on the lender and borrower, then - maybe - we'd see far fewer loans and far more sensible asset prices.  Sure, such a change would 'destroy' vast swathes of 'capital' - but... maybe... this 'capital' was only an illusion in the first place?

Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree... but it feels, to me, that the problem we face may be that the complexity of contemporary contracts, in practise, likely leaves many of them completely unenforceable.  If this is the case, then banks can not determine their own solvency - let alone make good decisions to guide a vibrant economy; individuals can't effectively trade assets and the free-market economy will, as a consequence, be incapable of meeting anyone's requirements.  To make matters worse, I strongly suspect that the institutions of law, order and justice are wholly incapable of dealing with any of the epic mess that now permeates our entire reality.

 

[A.steve]

On 05/07/2021 at 20:48, Dorkins said:

People can't make their mortgage payments with belief, they need money for that.

 

This statement fundamentally fails to appreciate what money is. 

I'd be prepared to go so far as to say that mortgage payments can't be made without belief.  Furthermore, the right beliefs (by the right parties) are probably also sufficient.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

20 minutes ago, A.steve said:

While I recognise the erudite debate between the labels 'coerced' and 'forced'... I think a more interesting debate would deal with the harder philosophical question:  Is it possible to coerce or force anyone to borrow?

Perhaps, if the borrower is not adamant that they are freely entering into the arrangement, the arrangement has no legitimacy?  If the agreement has no legitimacy, then neither does the debt.  So... how might we establish that the arrangement was one sought by the borrower and willingly entered into?  Do we have to demonstrate that the borrower had 'Free Will'?  If so, then we're in a heap of trouble... How could we ever even begin to reason about whether such a thing as 'Free Will' even exists? Might we all be nothing more than meaty machines reacting to our environment?

Whenever I think about this, I find myself struggling to justify the western premise that debt must be absolute/real.  Sure, we'd be in a sorry state if feckless "borrowers" felt they were entitled to just keep anything they borrowed.  Similarly, however, I think we're in a mess if the lender takes no meaningful risk when making a loan.  Neither extreme seems satisfactory.

If debts were not 'absolute', but placed symmetric responsibility on the lender and borrower, then - maybe - we'd see far fewer loans and far more sensible asset prices.  Sure, such a change would 'destroy' vast swathes of 'capital' - but... maybe... this 'capital' was only an illusion in the first place?

Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree... but it feels, to me, that the problem we face may be that the complexity of contemporary contracts, in practise, likely leaves many of them completely unenforceable.  If this is the case, then banks can not determine their own solvency - let alone make good decisions to guide a vibrant economy; individuals can't effectively trade assets and the free-market economy will, as a consequence, be incapable of meeting anyone's requirements.  To make matters worse, I strongly suspect that the institutions of law, order and justice are wholly incapable of dealing with any of the epic mess that now permeates our entire reality.

 

eh ?

[A.steve]

On 07/07/2021 at 17:59, TheCountOfNowhere said:

eh ?

You claimed that it is not possible to force someone to borrow.  Several people commented.  My comment takes a higher-level perspective.  There is no meaningful distinction between someone being forced and to something... and a situation in which someone does the same something because they perceive it necessary for reasons that independent observers fail to properly appreciate.

[TheCountOfNowhere]

1 hour ago, A.steve said:

You claimed that it is not possible to force someone to borrow.  Several people commented.  My comment takes a higher-level perspective.  There is no meaningful distinction between someone being forced and to something... and a situation in which someone does the same something because they perceive it necessary for reasons that independent observers fail to properly appreciate.

Ahhh, I see.  That makes more sense.

[Loving The Crash]

On 05/07/2021 at 15:00, Si1 said:

Every London journo and economics commentator is saying this. They must have spoken to treasury and BoE people in smoky late night bars and been told "we will not let house prices fall, that's just that"

Looks like the sustained deflationary environment has led to a collective amnesia regarding the balance of power between the bond market and the government.

[Si1]

5 minutes ago, Loving The Crash said:

Looks like the sustained deflationary environment has led to a collective amnesia regarding the balance of power between the bond market and the government.

well, quite

[Mancunian284]

On 04/07/2021 at 15:01, hughjass said:

Thats quite informative Si1, i didnt know you have to do 35 hours a week, so all those 16 hours aweek claims are finished are they?

Depends on how old your youngest child is.  Once the youngest goes to high school, then you have to do 35 hours a week.  I think between 5 and 11 it’s 25 hours and under 5 it’s less.

[Si1]

20 minutes ago, Mancunian284 said:

Depends on how old your youngest child is.  Once the youngest goes to high school, then you have to do 35 hours a week.  I think between 5 and 11 it’s 25 hours and under 5 it’s less.

agreed (except for a couple one of them would need to do 35 hours even with a young child - only the lead carer is allowed to do lower hours)

I think in practice for most COUPLES outside London that would mean that once someone's youngest child goes to high school (or is it hits age 12?) then they would no longer qualify for universal credit at all because once both partners are working 35 hours a week then their earnings would be way above what they are deemed to need to live on given rental costs outside london

but a single parent would still get topped up I think which would help to keep kiddies out of abject poverty

Edited July 9, 2021 by Si1

[Mancunian284]

3 hours ago, Si1 said:

agreed (except for a couple one of them would need to do 35 hours even with a young child - only the lead carer is allowed to do lower hours)

I think in practice for most COUPLES outside London that would mean that once someone's youngest child goes to high school (or is it hits age 12?) then they would no longer qualify for universal credit at all because once both partners are working 35 hours a week then their earnings would be way above what they are deemed to need to live on given rental costs outside london

but a single parent would still get topped up I think which would help to keep kiddies out of abject poverty

Yes and the state no longer contributes to holiday / after school club once the kid is at high school.  If you are on a low wage then you can claim up to 70% of it back up to high school age.

 

A couple both doing 35 hours a week on min wage would have a household income of 35k, so would only get child benefit plus help towards rent (if in a high rent area).

 

The old system was bonkers as it often made people worse off if they did more than 16 hours a week work.  It would reduce their benefits more than the extra salary (if on a low wage).

 

Also, the 2 child limit has been in place since 2017, I think we are yet to see the impact of that.

 

Can’t you tell I read mumsnet 😂.