just more 'new' labour economic illiteracy....
people cannot buy an asset for what they believe it is worth to them
of course it will force house prices down, thereby undermining
personal wealth...in a sane world 'new' labour would be liable
for the losses....
they could always replace the losses with still more tax...
'Maria' wrote this:
Yes, that's going to be a problem. But I guess it would provide
Brown with the excuse to reinvent council housing. Just think of
it ...all those nice new council estates, with homes allocated to
people who are carefully vetted and approved Labour voters!
That's right, after all, we're are the 49th least populated country in
New Labour took one look at the benefits to be had from inward
migration and thought, ?We?ll have some of that? whilst at the same
time turning the deaf ear towards all the downside.
The choice is simple if you want population to grow to 60 million
(though since the economic downturn that may be unlikely indeed people
can?t get out fast enough) you have to free up the land and stop
pretending we can hold on to Jerusalem.
House prices in the UK always have been just one stroke of a planner?s
pen away from a crash but Brown saw to it that even that wasn?t
Two things: the UK has (approx.) 10 times the population density of
america, that puts a lot of pressure on land prices.
Second, supply and demand. Until the crunch the UK was building around
180,000 new houses each year. However, to meet demand the figure
should have been closer to 220,000. The lack of new houses is partly
due to lack of land, partly NIMBY-ism, partly restrictive planning
such as green-belt policies.
The two countries are not comparable.
What's wrong with keeping things in check using interest rates, set
against price inflation, the way Brown should have been doing all
The argument against that is that it may be inappropriate for other
sectors of the economy.
Well have two interest rates then or maybe just consider that house
prices might be better inside the inflation calculation, pissing out,
instead of outside the calculation, pissing in.
In other words, the way they were before Brown had his way but then
that would mean accepting some blame, this way it makes it look as if
the banks were to blame all along.
The population hasn't really grown that much (it's grown about 0.5% pa since
2001), the rise in demand has mostly been fed by idiots buying second homes, and
other idiots buying much bigger houses than they really need because they
reckoned it was a no-brainer good investment.
Hull maybe. Even here you will be hard pushed to get anything for that
and this is a traditionally cheap area. Also it does not take into
account the huge number of people who don't earn anything near the
average wage (i.e. almost everyone I know). I wonder if they will still
take joint incomes?
Even modest ex-council houses in my home town (St Albans) will have to
be bought by very wealthy people, or the owners simply won't sell if
they can't buy another.
He's done that on top of the cap AFAIK.
Not even Hull - the cheapest property there at the moment is £21K which
is 25% shared ownership.
And we are talking about the average house, not a cheap Sh*thole the
likes of which people like me always end up living in! :)
I wouldn't want a shared ownership house - mainly because the rent
portion is always going to increase whether your wages do or not.
I guess people will have to get used to shared ownership for a while
before people give in and lower prices...
There's even more pressure in countries like Holland and Belgium.
Only because demand was being fuelled by dimwits who thought investing in a
second home or in a much bigger house than they needed was a way of making
money. Or the increasing numbers who decide to live alone, possibly for the same
reason, rather than with friends/relatives.
From 1998-2008 the UK population has grown by only 2.9%, but the number of
households has grown by 9.3%
Well we won't need them now, hopefully. Our housing stock has increased by much
more than our population over the last 10-20 years so why should we?
If the government wasn't so Obamaesquely concerned about the welfare of
idiots and institutions who borrowed/lent more than they can afford,
they wouldn't be doing this IMHO. It really is pure nannyism.
How long before they are telling banks how much they can lend to businesses?