House price gravy train may have hit the buffers

[blup]

Most of today’s youngsters wouldn’t even consider doing that

Either because they can’t afford to buy or have the bank of mum and dad to help.

 

[blup]

That's been going on for a long time. Sadly it's just a London thing, prices there had got utterly out of control.

What you call utterly out of control is no more than the application of free market principles

Anyone with any sense is abandoning the place for the surrounding areas, cashing in and escaping rapidly rising crime.

More Londistann propoganda.

I thought UK prices were unsustainable in the early 2000s. Thankfully my other half persuaded me to go along with buying our first house, against my instincts. I remember saying to someone that it was just a place to live, not an investment and there's no way it would ever be worth more than the £200k we were paying. About 15 years later we sold for £350k, although probably half of that rise was the money we spent on the old shack.

House price inflation was far greater over that 15 year time period

So many MPs (including Labour party) have property investments that there's a massive corrupt vested interest in keeping the grazy train going, eating their own young in rent payments.

Nothing to do with personal interest, everything to do with Thatcher's obsession with the free market.

At some point it has to crash, but I wouldn't ever predict it happening.

unlikely, first time buyers have too put in far more equity nowadays

Although the likely Labour party death of the UK economy will probably make it inevitable.

Nothing to with Labor

I hope I get to see it. We own one house, it's paid for and I don't want to sell it. So whether it's worth £1 or £1million doesn't matter in the slightest. But I'd really enjoy watching a few massively indebted all-flash-and-no-cash types face reality.

Banning foreign investment in uk property would help, although the money launderers would suffer

 

[SPLINE]

Most of today’s youngsters wouldn’t even consider doing that.

The 'vigorous new British' are fine with living in run-down shlt holes! Visit the occupied towns of the north to experience the worlds of bypassed electricity, ten in a room, unregistered occupants etc etc.

 

[JohnD]

My latest example is a friends daughter who asked her mum for a reduction in her rent as it’s too expensive. She did this immediately after booking a very expensive holiday to Japan

The rent she pays is a very small percentage of her take home pay as a qualified nurse

Is that intended to support your opinion the young people in the past didn't want the best life they could?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

What you call utterly out of control is no more than the application of free market principles

There's nothing "free" about the housing market. Supply is controlled via a cartel of housebuilders sitting on huge land-banks. If prices stop rising they slow or stop building until they start rising again.

Supply is also controlled via planning permission, which ensures the market is definitely not free. I'm not suggesting that abolishing planning would be a good thing, but farmland sells for about £10k per acre, so a house plot would be about £1k if the market was free to set its own price. It isn't, it's highly controlled by the state.

Demand is massively stoked up by government-funded subsidies for builders via incentives for buyers.

Lots of MPs have property portfolios, housebuilders fund political parties and receive lots of subsidies.

The housing "market" is a complex web of regulation, subsidy and control by people with very deep pockets.

 

[blup]

There's nothing "free" about the housing market. Supply is controlled via a cartel of housebuilders sitting on huge land-banks. If prices stop rising they slow or stop building until they start rising again.

You sound like a commie, what you describe is the free market in practice. Toreys are obsessed with not interfering with it.

Supply is also controlled via planning permission, which ensures the market is definitely not free. I'm not suggesting that abolishing planning would be a good thing, but farmland sells for about £10k per acre, so a house plot would be about £1k if the market was free to set its own price. It isn't, it's highly controlled by the state.

You're partly correct, but the state does not determine land values, the market does. What the state can do is use compulsory purchase powers to acquire land needed for housing at existing value i.e. not taking account of the land value enhanced by planning allocations. It was tried by Wedgie Benn in something called the Community land Act but was never put into force.

Demand is massively stoked up by government-funded subsidies for builders via incentives for buyers.

Like what?

Lots of MPs have property portfolios, housebuilders fund political parties and receive lots of subsidies.

They are certainly influenced by the housing lobby.

The housing "market" is a complex web of regulation, subsidy and control by people with very deep pockets.

Even if land and the associated infrastructure were made available we would still need Polish brickes, but they mostly fekked off back home. The one time when free market principles were needed.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

You sound like a commie, what you describe is the free market in practice. Toreys are obsessed with not interfering with it.

Rubbish. Childish insult aside, you don't understand the basics of economics.

All free markets require competition to keep things in check. This usually requires some degree of government involvement, to ensure that powerful players don't dominate and control. Otherwise what you end up with is Capitalism, but is not a Free Market. A Cartel or Monopoly are both Capitalism, but neither is a Free Market. For that you need competition.

Free competition was removed in 1951 when the concept of Planning Permission was introduced. Since then the supply of housing has been very much controlled. House builders and landowners have taken advantage of this imbalance.

I'm not advocating the removal of planning permission and having a free-for-all, where anyone could build anything anywhere. That would be really bad for most people, but it would be a free market and would result in lower house prices. We have to accept that the housing market is very controlled, by regulation and vested interests, often working in very dodgy cooperation, so it's definitely not a free market.

 

[blup]

Rubbish. Childish insult aside, you don't understand the basics of economics.

All free markets require competition to keep things in check. This usually requires some degree of government involvement, to ensure that powerful players don't dominate and control. Otherwise what you end up with is Capitalism, but is not a Free Market. A Cartel or Monopoly are both Capitalism, but neither is a Free Market. For that you need competition.

You can’t divorce the free market from capitalism.

Free competition was removed in 1951 when the concept of Planning Permission was introduced.

It was around long before then. And it wasn't about inhibiting competition but making land available for development and regulating its use.

Since then the supply of housing has been very much controlled. House builders and landowners have taken advantage of this imbalance.

House builders like to have a supply of land, but it is as much about shortage of infrastructure and workers to build out shat us needed

I'm not advocating the removal of planning permission and having a free-for-all, where anyone could build anything anywhere. That would be really bad for most people, but it would be a free market and would result in lower house prices.

The worst nimbys are torey controlled rural councils and parish councils.

We have to accept that the housing market is very controlled, by regulation and vested interests, often working in very dodgy cooperation, so it's definitely not a free market.

Nonsense, what next, ban the building regs in favour of free may competition. What you suggest would very quickly become an Amazon style domination of the market.