Wednesday, June 1, 2011

One of the most farcical property debates ever

Newsnight 30/05/2011

Jeremy Paxman is joined by HPC favourate Kirsty Allsop and some architect/writer called Owen Hatterly to debate yesterday's "Generation Rent" story. Brainlessness ensues. Allsop's main arguement is that people need to invest in their own home in order to save for their retirement. Don't know what Hatterly was doing there as he didn't set out any coherent counterarguements.

Posted by greenmind @ 12:40 PM (2130 views)
Please complete the required fields.



12 thoughts on “One of the most farcical property debates ever

  • Sorry, forgot to add thast the item starts at 34:45.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Either:
    a) Kirsty has gone right up in my estimations, I had no idea she was qualified to give financial advice, or
    b) Why do they let someone who isn’t qualified to give financial advice go on telly at license payers expense to tell them how to plan for their retirement?
    And either way:
    c) I would have thought investing in a pension was a better way to save for retirement whereas houses are mainly for living in.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    As I always like to say, Kirsty and I are completely agreed on Ricardo’s Law, i.e. that the value of land is generated by the community.

    She refers to this as “buying in an up and coming location which will benefit from public investment in raiilways etc” whereas I draw the opposite conclusion, that land rental value are a suitable subject matter for taxation.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Rental John says:

    In my view ‘The Honorable’ Krusty Allsopp is not qualified to give any advice, on any subject, to anyone!

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • It was appalling, this was the “Big Society” bull…t applied to property markets, a new twist on the farce.
    People are no longer ready to sacrifice to save up for the deposit, this generation of FTB is different from those after the second world war…. and similar nonsensical slogans, and Jeremy Paxman was happy to let her get away with it…..poor journalism, as simple as that.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Dammit – why couldn’t they have a better foil than that unkempt hippy?

    How can someone sit on national TV and say that borrowing multiples of your salary is saving? Buying a house is not saving, it’s borrowing. Where Kirsty, do the funds for the borrowers come from? You don’t know do you? It’s should be savers shouldn’t it? But if everyone is borrowing then where is all the saving to fund it? You don’t know do you? What’s that, quantitative what?

    Doesn’t sound very sustainable does it?

    Also – when Mr Jones reaches 70 and decides to sell his house to fund his care in retirement where do the funds come from to buy his house? Think about it you well-fed oaf. Where does the greater fool get the funds to pay the fool? If Mr Jones has saved, it’s at the expense of further borrowing by Mr Jones’ children. Ad nauseum. Doesn’t sound very sustainable does it?

    But of course you don’t think these things through do you Kirsty. You think that borrowing is saving. You think that buying a house entitles a person to healthcare.

    WTF.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 4. jackas said…Dammit – why couldn’t they have a better foil than that unkempt hippy?

    ~ The perfect plant. Enjoy your choclolate TV moments.

    I’m sure our Kirsty also thinks that war is peace. They are a growing breed that trouble me.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • I missed this last night because I couldn’t be bothered to sit through the rest of newsnight. However it sounds just as I expected. A big fat useless upper class twit trying to tell us all how ‘secure’ property investment is.

    Property is WORTHLESS without jobs – but the fatty doesn’t work this out – possibly because her only job has ever been to be a blathering TV presenter who is merely ‘background noise’ and mis-leading.

    Lets not forget her ‘partner in crime’ Phil Spencer went BUST last year – hardly a centre of ‘financial expertise’ are they?

    As for Hatterly – my cat could have put up a better argument than he did. Truly pathetic.

    What makes me laugh is the stupidity of Allsop – she is suggesting you save money in what is now a speculative asset (thanks to the BTL boom)

    One thing that ‘the fat one’ assumes is that interest rates will be as low in the future as they have been in the past (which isn’t going to happen) – which will mean (as opposed to historical evidence) that renting will be cheaper than buying…..and best of all she assumes that “you will get something at the end of it” – and not actually be left with a debt for your children – which is much more likely as any property price rise will be re-mortaged (as it has done recently) in order to supplement falling incomes.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • ontheotherhand says:

    jackass, “Where Kirsty, do the funds for the borrowers come from? You don’t know do you? It’s should be savers shouldn’t it? But if everyone is borrowing then where is all the saving to fund it?”

    Indeed the mortgage lending splurge used to be limited by the supply of UK savings, but the ability to get money from the markets instead by packaging up the mortgages “securitising” allowed the party to continue.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • mark wadsworth says:

    Jackas: “Buying a house is not saving, it’s borrowing”

    Yes of course, a sensible person knows that, but look at it through the Home-Owner-Ist DoubleThink mirror and magically it becomes “responsible borrowing” or even “investing”.

    Don’t forget:
    Borrowing £100,000 to buy a house = a sign of responsibility, taking a stake in society, getting a foot on the ladder etc.
    Borrowing £1,000 to go on holiday = reckless consumption and to be despised

    Iain Duncan Smith did a welfare reform paper a couple of years ago that took this logical flaw to its obvious conclusion and said “Homeownership is good because then people don’t need rental subsidies in their old age and can be self-reliant THEREFORE we should subsidise mortgages AND pay people’s mortgage interest when they fall on hard times” i.e. “To avoid having to put up some old people up in council houses in future, which is very cheap, we will hurl vast amounts of taxpayers money at all and sundry today, which is very expensive and pointless to boot”.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Peter_2008 says:

    The problem with people born rich and posh like Kirsty, is that they do not fundamentally understand ordinary people’s life.

    Kirsty’s first job was a non job working for her parents on a generous salary. She bought her first house with massive financial aid from her parents. Because that’s how her life has been, she now thinks everybody else should be the same and must be the same.

    She does not understand that buying properties with a lot of cash (like her kind) and buying with a lot of debt (the rest of humans) are two very different things.

    Despite my dislike of property investment, buying properties mostly with cash IS usually a very good inflation hedge. That’s you are too lazy to invest it in anything else. It’s low risk. It’s certainly better than keeping the cash.

    To buy properties with +75% debt, however, is a completely different matter. It is essentially a very high risk financial investment, which the banks, brokers and EAs etc don’t really want you to understand.

    A lot of ordinary people were deliberately misled by VIs on this issue on the promise that “Let’s follow what rich and successful people do, so if they are buying properties, you should buy it too.” That’s completely non sense.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • peter_2008 says:

    The problem with people born rich and posh like Kirsty, is that they do not fundamentally understand ordinary people’s life.

    Kirsty’s first job was a non job working for her parents on a generous salary. She bought her first house with massive financial aid from her parents. Because that’s how her life has been, she now thinks everybody else should be the same and must be the same.

    She does not understand that buying properties with a lot of cash (like her kind) and buying with a lot of debt (the rest of humans) are two very different things.

    Despite my dislike of property investment, buying properties mostly with cash IS usually a very good inflation hedge. That’s you are too lazy to invest it in anything else. It’s low risk. It’s certainly better than keeping the cash.

    To buy properties with +75% debt, however, is a completely different matter. It is essentially a very high risk financial investment, which the banks, brokers and EAs etc don’t really want you to understand.

    A lot of ordinary people were deliberately misled by VIs on this issue on the promise that “Let’s follow what rich and successful people do, so if they are buying properties, you should buy it too.” That’s completely non sense.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>