Reply to: Are you middle class?

[sasguru]

Don't worry about it. As we all know, anyone who resorts to juvenile insults like that knows he's lost the argument and is just reinforcing what we already know about that person.

What about someone who resorts to sock-puppetry?

10

[Gittins Gal]

Sorry, were you trying to say something in between all that noise? Troll gibberish doesn't make much sense, sadly.

Don't worry about it. As we all know, anyone who resorts to juvenile insults like that knows he's lost the argument and is just reinforcing what we already know about that person.

[sasguru]

Sorry, were you trying to say something in between all that noise? .

Yes, that you're plankton. But like all plankton you don't know why.

[Zero Liability]

I reckon you should fook orf and live in Somalia.
It's economic and small governmental system are very much in tune with your ideas.

Sorry, were you trying to say something in between all that noise? Troll gibberish doesn't make much sense, sadly.

[scooterscot]

I work 2-3 days a week and my seplinlg is geart.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I reckon you should fook orf and live in Somalia.
It's economic and small governmental system are very much in tune with your ideas.

I bet he's NEVER heard that before

[KentPhilip]

I understand that for families, but why do 20-30 year olds feel the need to own their one and two bed flats when they have no intention of being there more than 3 years. In my friends I see a lot of parental pressure to buy "to get on the ladder" and renting being "wasted money".

Mortgage interest, or lost interest on cash savings, is "wasted money" too.

[vetran]

^This

I lived in Germany for a few years in the 70's and it was the same then, no one could understand why you would want to buy.

There was a piece in the Evening Standard the other day explaining that until corporates get in on the act and root out the amateur BTL owners the rental sector will carry on the way it is.

Cost for a mortgage is way lower than renting and will be for some good while, problem is that the hoops you have to jump through to get a mortgage are getting worse and the way the market has been for a while, it will be impossible for those that are not on the ladder to actually get on it.

Renting has been part of the fabric for centuries, yet I see very few 'professional firms' doing the renting out of houses. If there was real profit in it then there would be a Travelodge & Hilton style company doing it.

sneering at the amateur BTLs is a bit silly, without them renting would be a lot more expensive so the 'professional' businesses can make a profit. Indeed many companies buy properties and leave them empty probably because renting is too much trouble.

The problem with house prices is there are too few properties for too many people.

[sasguru]

With escalating house prices, the potential for rate rises and the costs of homeownership in general, I don't see it being cost effective at the moment. It is a priority of mine though but [B]I've not even decided if I want to settle here yet.

I reckon you should fook orf and live in Somalia.
It's economic and small governmental system are very much in tune with your ideas.

[Zero Liability]

With escalating house prices, the potential for rate rises and the costs of homeownership in general, I don't see it being cost effective at the moment. It is a priority of mine though but I've not even decided if I want to settle here yet.

[original PM]

I understand that for families, but why do 20-30 year olds feel the need to own their one and two bed flats when they have no intention of being there more than 3 years. In my friends I see a lot of parental pressure to buy "to get on the ladder" and renting being "wasted money".

Yes because if I pay £600 quid a month rent I get a roof over my head for a month for £600.

If I pay £600 quid a month for a mortgage then I am buying a house and getting a roof over my head...

Obvioulsy the housing market can go up and down but as long as you are not stupid then buying is always better than renting.

[Zero Liability]

Which is besides the point anyway. House prices rose, but it's only government promises not to let those process fall that created any bubbles. The promise of QE-like policies is as good a initiating those policies. Prices will always rise and fall over time, and of course it's only when they are deemed "too high" that they'll begin to fall. That's just how prices work.
So not doing QE-like things is only pulling the plug on a bubble that QE-like things created in the first place. People's pre-2008 exposure to housing they couldn't afford was stoked by government pressure on banks to lend, and their overt even if tacit reassurances that people should have faith in 'bricks & mortar'.

Agreed. That is my point in a nutshell, they've painted themselves into a corner.

[Churchill]

Which is besides the point anyway. House prices rose, but it's only government promises not to let those process fall that created any bubbles. The promise of QE-like policies is as good a initiating those policies. Prices will always rise and fall over time, and of course it's only when they are deemed "too high" that they'll begin to fall. That's just how prices work.
So not doing QE-like things is only pulling the plug on a bubble that QE-like things created in the first place. People's pre-2008 exposure to housing they couldn't afford was stoked by government pressure on banks to lend, and their overt even if tacit reassurances that people should have faith in 'bricks & mortar'.

How else is one to "prop up" the financial institutions? We all know that "pension schemes" are for all intents and purposes a rip-off so less and less of us "invest" in them, to such an extent that the government steps in and forces the creation of more and more pension schemes.

Read your James Joyce, "an Englishman's greatest pride is the ability to claim he has paid his own way and owes nothing"!

[SpontaneousOrder]

I agree that rapidly pulling the plug may cause a lot of harm to individuals whose wealth is tied up in housing, but it's a case of either the central banks gradually doing it or the market forcing their hand at a later stage.

Which is besides the point anyway. House prices rose, but it's only government promises not to let those process fall that created any bubbles. The promise of QE-like policies is as good a initiating those policies. Prices will always rise and fall over time, and of course it's only when they are deemed "too high" that they'll begin to fall. That's just how prices work.
So not doing QE-like things is only pulling the plug on a bubble that QE-like things created in the first place. People's pre-2008 exposure to housing they couldn't afford was stoked by government pressure on banks to lend, and their overt even if tacit reassurances that people should have faith in 'bricks & mortar'.

[Zero Liability]

Well, it's probably serving to keep the bubble inflated but that might be more desirable than a rapid deflation.

Well that's the thing - how do the central banks propose to keep on top of this credit when it seeps through the economy? They can neutralise bank reserves, which is no doubt highly unpopular with the banks, or pay them to sit on the money, but even that can't go on forever. I agree that rapidly pulling the plug may cause a lot of harm to individuals whose wealth is tied up in housing, but it's a case of either the central banks gradually doing it or the market forcing their hand at a later stage.