Sunday, Jun 07, 2015

What Britain desires is a business opportunity rather than somewhere to live a life

Guardian: When did houses stop being homes?

Our ambitions have changed. Where once we dreamed of a house of our own, do we now yearn for a house for loan? Have we given up on the idea of a home completely now that a house is less a machine for living in, more a machine for printing cash?

Posted by debtserf @ 10:44 PM (6710 views)
Add Comment
Report Article


1. libertas said...

Homes have always been capital have always been homes. How one can separate these two concepts meaningfully is beyond be.

My home is my home, and it also my capital.

Monday, June 8, 2015 08:00PM Report Comment

2. mister ed said...

"How one can separate these two concepts meaningfully is beyond be." (sic)

That isn't surprising.

Monday, June 8, 2015 09:21PM Report Comment

3. Dontpanic said...


Monday, June 8, 2015 09:24PM Report Comment

4. libertas said...

OK Mister Ed, lets take this to its logical conclusion. Are you saying that home ownership equals poverty for the majority of home owners and renting equals wealth? If not, what exactly are you trying to say?

Monday, June 8, 2015 09:50PM Report Comment

5. enuii said...

Libertas, for the majority home ownership now consists of taking 25-40 years (chuck a remortgage in for major home improvements or 1 move) to pay off a mortgage hopefully by the time you retire in order to enjoy a few (rent/mortgage) payment free years before you kick the bucket. Having paid over the odds for housing (rented or mortgaged) at the expense of adequate pension contributions or alternative arrangements carrying such debt into retirement is probably no longer practical.

Most people do actually live in one or two homes for their entire lives and all ownership means (rather than renting) is that you may actually be able to avoid a retirement of genteel poverty.

This will appear increasingly apparent to more people in about 10-15 years time.

Monday, June 8, 2015 10:54PM Report Comment

6. reticent said...

Surely the point she's making is about people talking increasingly about houses as investments. You can't live in a financial insinstrument.

Homeowners didn't used to talk that way about their homes. Only with the explosion of BTL has that become how owner occupiers have begun to think of their homes.

If you exclude people's primary residence from their capital (and many measures do, including that by which millionaires are generally determined), every property "investment" means one less owner-occupier.

Her point is neither original not particularly open to debate. OOs have been MEWing, declaring their house to be their pension and celebrating rises since the mid-90s.

You might think of the equity in your home as capital but it's hardly working capital: it's neither fungible nor liquid and can't be accessed without significantly diminishing your standard of living (whether now by downsizing or later by having to repay MEW debt) and having to incur significant transaction costs.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015 07:33AM Report Comment

7. Gorkov said...

Just go to any village in Eastern Europe, or even within 40km of a big city. Those houses are worth maybe 5k euros, maybe less.
I bet you they are worth a lot more than that to their owners as their home, family history, etc.
So there are still lots of places where a home has very little cash value but huge human value (its original purpose)

Tuesday, June 9, 2015 07:34AM Report Comment

8. mombers said...

Your home equity is not useful capital apart from protecting you from being even more screwed by rising house prices and rents than if you don't have any. There is no way to realise your 'gains' apart from using it to move and get an even bigger mortgage and therefore further diminish the money that you have to enjoy life. There is no way to exit the market with a gain unless you move abroad or downsize - the latter usually meaning you're at the end of your life and have some money to enjoy a retirement after a lifetime of unnecessarily lower living standards.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015 09:56AM Report Comment

9. libertas said...

"Libertas, for the majority home ownership now consists of taking 25-40 years (chuck a remortgage in for major home improvements or 1 move) to pay off a mortgage hopefully by the time you retire"

For most renters, unlike mortgage holders, they face ever rising rents for their whole life. No respite during retirement, if they can afford it.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 09:37PM Report Comment

10. mister ed said...


That's not what the article is about. It's about the negative impact on society of viewing a house as an investment rather than a place to live.

In no way does it say that buying a house is a bad financial move in the long term.

Unfortunately, a person with a one-track mind sees stuff that isn't there just to prove a point that no-one is disputing.

It's time to change the record.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:00PM Report Comment

11. libertas said...

Whereas with a mortgage, your wage generally rises but the mortgage cost falls, and you can normally re-mortgage for a longer period later on if you need to reduce the cost, or you can rent a room out or even the whole house during a crisis.

Basically, those who claim that renting is more economical than renting are total fools. It is more flexible yes, but not better financially over somebody's lifespan. Just plain idiocy. Yes, BTL is not the best investment in the world, but that is comparing one investment to another, what we are talking about is comparing a lifetime of appreciating rental costs, vs part of a lifetime on a decreasing mortgage liability that should cease prior to retirement, if all is planned well. What is there to compare?!

So obviously, you make sacrifices and compromises in terms of size, location, etc. just get your bloody feet on the ladder. You can still get studios in London for £130k. Not the best parts of town, but they will get better if you move there, and then once you have paid off a decent amount of it you can scale up.

Just do it.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:26PM Report Comment

12. mister ed said...

"but they will get better if you move there, and then once you have paid off a decent amount of it you can scale up"

Total piffle, as been proved on this forum many times.

Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:58PM Report Comment

13. sibley's b'stard child said...

Once a sufficient number of people had been persuaded that you could get money for nothing from housing, without any thought for the implications or who would bear the burden of their profits. Unfortunately as land is a monopoly this is one game you can't opt out of. The banks always win.

Thursday, June 11, 2015 01:21PM Report Comment

14. doomwatch said...

around 1999.

Thursday, June 18, 2015 01:13PM Report Comment

15. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.


Add comment

  • If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
  • If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
  • 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
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines
Admin Password
Email Address

Main Blog | Archive | Add Article | Blog Policies