RichM Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 How the London property boom will dissolve Britain's North-South divide Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
van hoogstraten Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 I think the Times are to be applauded for their contribution to the much disparaged policy of "care in the community". Years ago obviously unhinged (although entirely harmless) people like Kaletsky would have been locked away in brooding asylums, now they get a chance to earn of living by penning fairy stories such as this one which the Times allows as a bit of light entertainment on the sometimes rather dull business pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 (edited) The City of London is wonderful and everything, all those invisible exports and earnings, however it's easy to get carried away, the City itself states that they contribute just 2.5% to GDP, which is pretty decent, however even after years of decline the manufacturing sector in this country still contributes 16% of output, and 13% of employment. This also ignores the fact the City requires commodities and goods to trade, deals to underwrite and finance for exports of goods, our one time primacy of industry established the City and its global reputation, one can only hope it is strong enough to carry this forward as a center for trade even without the strong underpinnings of a domestic market. Edited April 13, 2006 by BuyingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainClamp Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Seems like complete pants alright. The mechanism by which 3000 very wealthy people manage to cause that percentage increase in the enormous London area housing market isn't explained at all. They should only be setting prices for high-end luxury properties (and I mean proper luxury, not your standard 2-bed paper-thin-walled kitchen-in-your-living-room shithole apartment). The influence of these peoples' salaries should not override that of the vastly lower-paid majority. Then we have the guff about downsizers invigorating less fortunate areas. Not really true. Older people selling up and moving into an area to retire may not add much to it. It'll create some local service employment but nothing substantial (nothing that will pay for the newly-inflated house prices thanks to the influx of downsizers anyway). Plus no mention at all of the zero-sum aspect of it (someone must pay for all that nice 'free' money), the intergenerational chasm and likely demographic/sociological effects, and the current credit boom. Lacks balance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Kaletsky is a very silly man......How he has got into the position to spout his sixth-form economic claptrap in ''The Times'' every week defies me!..... This particular argument was forwarded by many laissez-faire economists during the 80s boom... saying how excessive house prices and rents in London would force companies to relocate to places where potential employees could afford the homes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duplex Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Kaletsky and his ilk still labour under the illusion that the new economic powerhouses of the world will divert strategically important financial services business to London in the coming decades. This argument is akin to suggesting that Australian open cast coal mining exports will be routed through Newcastle. It’s truly amazing that the same arrogant, lazy thinking that saw the demise of indigenous manufacturing industry, still thrives in the UK services sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
737 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 (edited) Kaletsky and his ilk still labour under the illusion that the new economic powerhouses of the world will divert strategically important financial services business to London in the coming decades. Apparently restrictions on what "The City" can and cannot do are the laxest in the world !! Of course the lack of regulation is designed to attract the less scrupulous companies, which it does very successfully. The only downside to this is that the indigenous population of the UK has less protection against sharks and rip off merchants (be they individuals or multi-nationals) than citizens in other advanced nations. Edited April 13, 2006 by 737 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuluf Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Apparently restrictions on what "The City" can and cannot do are the laxest in the world !! Of course the lack of regulation is designed to attract the less scrupulous companies, which it does very successfully. The only downside to this is that the indigenous population of the UK has less protection against sharks and rip off merchants (be they individuals or multi-nationals) than citizens in other advanced nations. Well said! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Well said! Unfortunately, incorrectly said, but I'm jiggered if I'm going to bore everyone with yet another dull FSA post with an additional topping of a Sarbanes-Oxley. Re: City bonuses, people focus on the million-plus bonus club, but beneath that there are a lot of associates and VPs that took home ~100k which is enough for a deposit on a nice place. And by a lot I mean an order of magnitude more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 She has changed a bit since reading the news and winning Come Dancing!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duplex Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 She has changed a bit since reading the news and winning Come Dancing!? Keep up Masked One; We are not talking of the lovley dancer/ (nice) news presenter Though I've noticed she's knocked out a fine book on globilisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 It went WHOOOOSH, right over your head didn't it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyewackitt Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Keep up Masked One; We are not talking of the lovley dancer/ (nice) news presenter Though I've noticed she's knocked out a fine book on globilisation. Lol - Raph would be amused... Raphael Kaplinsky is a leading expert in International Development studies and Technology/Innovation research and also used to lecture me at Sussex University a few years ago. It's a funny old world! But I don't think he's much into Ballroom Dancing... - Pye (Property Speculation Ninja ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biriani Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Many Londoners on moderate incomes are now living in houses worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. As they sell or rent these houses to bankers and then move to cheaper parts of the country, they will suddenly enjoy undreamt-of financial freedom — and will simultaneously achieve a redistribution of wealth between regions greater than by any past socialist government. So London will over time become a city populated wholly by bankers, all earning millions of pounds, who will buy and live in the pokey houses formerly owned by us mere mortals? Wow! I hope they're all prepared to make their own sandwiches and do all the cleaning though, if there's not going to be anyone on a "moderate income" left.... Utter nonsense, as everyone seems to agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duplex Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 It went WHOOOOSH, right over your head didn't it! No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
737 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 (edited) Unfortunately, incorrectly said, but I'm jiggered if I'm going to bore everyone with yet another dull FSA post with an additional topping of a Sarbanes-Oxley. Re: City bonuses, people focus on the million-plus bonus club, but beneath that there are a lot of associates and VPs that took home ~100k which is enough for a deposit on a nice place. And by a lot I mean an order of magnitude more. Well, according to the FT, there are now a number of foreign companies listing on AIM purely because our rules and regulations are much less stringent than their own. As for corruption and dishonesty in the City I have seen it first hand in the guise of a half commision agent (aided and abetted by a major broker) who almost bankrupted a very close, but financially naive, friend! I think the very negative perception we ordinary folk have of The City and it's dubious practises is why so many are putting their pension pot into property rather than trust it to, what we see as, dishonest City Slickers :angry: Edited April 13, 2006 by 737 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieboy Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Well, according to the FT, there are now a number of foreign companies listing on AIM purely because our rules and regulations are much less stringent than their own. As for corruption and dishonesty in the City I have seen it first hand in the guise of a half commision agent (aided and abetted by a major broker) who almost bankrupted a very close, but financially naive, friend! I think the very negative perception we ordinary folk have of The City and it's dubious practises is why so many are putting their pension pot into property rather than trust it to, what we see as, dishonest City Slickers :angry: AIM is intended to be a caveat emptor sort of place to invest money. The rules are intentionally less stringent than the main board, but the important thing is that they are less stringent from a listing qualifying and maintenance threshold p.o.v. not from a regulatory p.o.v. In this way, it is intended to be more like NASDAQ (i.e. limited trading history is fine, as is the lack of proft) and provides investors with access to grwoth companies. Sorry to hear about your mate... but the plural of anecdote is not data. The funny thing is that the City Slickers were ordinary punters who happened to wrote a column in the national press... which is not a regulated activity. Odd when you think of the power you have in that position. Now the Aussie Stock Market: there's a place to have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearfacts Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 (edited) Yes, Kaletsky is a bit of a dickhead but he, for once, managed to get a couple of things right i.e the next move in interest rates being up and the fact that outside of London house prices are flat and sales stagnant. For Mr K this is a real turn around. I'm sure he is right about the city too but you have to ask what happens when the booming /bloated financial services/banking sector hits the wall - i.e when the cheap money runs out and Greenspans predicted correction in assett prices kicks in ? Can we look forward to wunches on bankers standing on the window ledges at the banks clutching their worthless bits of paper ? The fall out should be huge and painful for London especially. My Father in Law used to work in the city , in insurance, he said their working practices had hardly changed since the 17th century. Lots of people running around with leather bound files, in and out of the pubs and clubs, and where their were computers they were mostly used for playing solitaire after the brokers had staggered back form the pub for the last half hour of the day. You would have thought they would have lost their business to foreign competition ... but not yet it seems. Edited April 13, 2006 by Bearfacts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Winners and Losers Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 (edited) All I can say is that the person I bought my house off in London in late 1996 had been in NEGATIVE EQUITY since they bought it in 1989. This I know for certain as I was working as a Nanny for someone who worked in the EA's office who sold it in 89 (not an EA) who dug out the sale price for me. That must have been very painful. Imagine being in negative equity for that long! Thank goodness it can never happen again in London. Edited April 13, 2006 by Winners and Losers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jem Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Kaletsky is a very silly man......How he has got into the position to spout his sixth-form economic claptrap in ''The Times'' every week defies me!..... This particular argument was forwarded by many laissez-faire economists during the 80s boom... saying how excessive house prices and rents in London would force companies to relocate to places where potential employees could afford the homes.... Great pity that this forum, once very interesting with many thoughtful contributions has become a gathering place for anti-capitalist, anarchist and their like. Kaletsky is right, I have on this forum long argued that globalisation has fundamentally altered the property market in London and the South East. Kaletsky writes for the Times because he is one of the very best there is with a track record for accuracy over a long period of time. Better to interact with his views and at least accept that he may be right and you wrong. Something cataclysmic is happening to our housing in the SE - the choices for FTB will be very different in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iLegallyBlonde Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Great pity that this forum, once very interesting with many thoughtful contributions has become a gathering place for anti-capitalist, anarchist and their like. Kaletsky is right, I have on this forum long argued that globalisation has fundamentally altered the property market in London and the South East. Kaletsky writes for the Times because he is one of the very best there is with a track record for accuracy over a long period of time. Better to interact with his views and at least accept that he may be right and you wrong. Something cataclysmic is happening to our housing in the SE - the choices for FTB will be very different in the future. What choice would that be for FTB ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immigrant Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Lol - Raph would be amused... Raphael Kaplinsky is a leading expert in International Development studies and Technology/Innovation research and also used to lecture me at Sussex University a few years ago. It's a funny old world! But I don't think he's much into Ballroom Dancing... - Pye (Property Speculation Ninja ) Raphael Kaplinsky is Natasha's Dad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Great pity that this forum, once very interesting with many thoughtful contributions has become a gathering place for anti-capitalist, anarchist and their like. You've obviously never encountered any real tree hugging anarchists, this forum is about home ownership, your average anti-capitalist doesn't have much time for basic property rights let alone ownership. 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.