luckyluke 2 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Agree to an extent but also would like to expose their shameless hypocrisy, which I imagine many don't know, including their readers. I think it would, at least, cause them embarrassment. Also the message should be made it is the Mail who hates Britain just about more than anyone else, because it's empirically true. Oh yeah, like I said, well worth highlighting. What I'm trying to say is it's much more important for people to realise how abhorrent the mail is now rather than 80 years ago. Cunts (come on, keep up!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 More positive economic news today with new car sales at their highest levels in 5 years. More people getting accessible credit..something the Tories slagged Labour for allowing to happen and dropping the country in the shite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17261 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 More people getting accessible credit..something the Tories slagged Labour for allowing to happen and dropping the country in the shite. If you're up at 530am you can listen as I do to wake up to money on 5 live and they said this morning its down to PPI payouts going as deposits for brand new cars. So another financial mess then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 If you're up at 530am you can listen as I do to wake up to money on 5 live and they said this morning its down to PPI payouts going as deposits for brand new cars. So another financial mess then I know my mates PPI payout is helping pay for his wedding next year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 More people getting accessible credit..something the Tories slagged Labour for allowing to happen and dropping the country in the shite. When you say accessible credit, do you mean by setting up a liability scheme in conjunction with the banks to kick start the stagnant housing market; allowing people with a 5% deposit that meet a strict lending code to access the same excellent rates as people on 20%? Is that what you meant? As I dont remember labour doing that?? They just incompetently sat back and watched an internet and housing bubble explode! Vote labour! They can run the country at a deficit during a boom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21625 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 When you say accessible credit, do you mean by setting up a liability scheme in conjunction with the banks to kick start the stagnant housing market; allowing people with a 5% deposit that meet a strict lending code to access the same excellent rates as people on 20%? Is that what you meant? As I dont remember labour doing that?? They just incompetently sat back and watched an internet and housing bubble explode! Vote labour! They can run the country at a deficit during a boom! Not all years were deficit, and anyway, running a deficit has always been the norm amongst the G7. AND we're talking hindsight here. Seems to me mistakes of the past will yet again be repeated under this government. Still, no point in building new houses as that will create negative equity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 The main housing bubble that caused problems in the UK was the one in the US. Spain ran a surplus in the same period. Your post is ill-informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 @@Phil not Renton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Not all years were deficit, and anyway, running a deficit has always been the norm amongst the G7. AND we're talking hindsight here. Seems to me mistakes of the past will yet again be repeated under this government. Still, no point in building new houses as that will create negative equity. No need for hindsight to know labour were spending like a mad man to cling onto power. The reference to the g7 countries running at a deficit only highlights how shallow politic has become. Clearly if you know g7 your smart enough to know two wrongs don't make a right. Which bit of supply and demand dont you understand? Its really simple, so pay attention, if you build 100 house at the end of my street, my house price will fall. Rule 101 of economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 The main housing bubble that caused problems in the UK was the one in the US. Spain ran a surplus in the same period. Your post is ill-informed. Which part is ill informed? House prices trippled in 10 year, so the government have taken a massive amount of extra revenue. ...and still managed to run at a deficit. Fwiw, the current UK house prices are still massively over value, so that has had a bigger impact on the market not picking up, as everyone now has to over stretch. Pretty sound logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meenzer 15527 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a period of negative equity if you're buying a house as somewhere to live rather than as a freely liquidable asset that gives you a god-given right to above-inflation value growth because property porn on TV tells you you're entitled to it. Of course your circumstances can change, but that's true of any major financial commitment, particularly one where society encourages you to commit yourself to the very limit of your means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a period of negative equity if you're buying a house as somewhere to live rather than as a freely liquidable asset that gives you a god-given right to above-inflation value growth because property porn on TV tells you you're entitled to it. Of course your circumstances can change, but that's true of any major financial commitment, particularly one where society encourages you to commit yourself to the very limit of your means. All very true. However building a shed load of new houses won't result in a temporary dip for the neighbours. Especially if they are "affordable" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30611 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Phil, haven't you already proven on here that you know fuck all about economics? Quit while you're behind, ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigWalrus 0 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Which bit of supply and demand dont you understand? Its really simple, so pay attention, if you build 100 house at the end of my street, my house price will fall. Rule 101 of economics. Progress on from Economics 101 and specifically focus on the economics of the housing market, which is a very different beast. House prices are very much a local phenomenon, influenced by local factors (local wages, local crime levels, local demand). They don't generally build houses on a whim and hope they'll sell. They research the local area and ensure there's enough interest for them to make it a profitable venture. Building 100 houses at the end of your street brings more people into the area, which justifies spending on local transport, local infrastructure and makes it more likely that big supermarkets etc will set up nearby. All of these factors then make living in your street more desirable and push the house prices up in the long run. On top of this, a batch of brand new houses improves the general standard and upkeep in the area, meaning the place is looked upon more favourably by those moving into the area. Given that new houses are almost always priced above market rates, this makes your older house more attractive and maintains your price. The only way building new houses would hurt the value of yours would be if they build in an area where there is no demand for any more houses - unlikely, given that the house builder is answerable to shareholders who would question why they'd built in a site which offers no returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Phil, haven't you already proven on here that you know fuck all about economics? Quit while you're behind, ffs. Link or shut the f**k up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Progress on from Economics 101 and specifically focus on the economics of the housing market, which is a very different beast. House prices are very much a local phenomenon, influenced by local factors (local wages, local crime levels, local demand). They don't generally build houses on a whim and hope they'll sell. They research the local area and ensure there's enough interest for them to make it a profitable venture. Building 100 houses at the end of your street brings more people into the area, which justifies spending on local transport, local infrastructure and makes it more likely that big supermarkets etc will set up nearby. All of these factors then make living in your street more desirable and push the house prices up in the long run. On top of this, a batch of brand new houses improves the general standard and upkeep in the area, meaning the place is looked upon more favourably by those moving into the area. Given that new houses are almost always priced above market rates, this makes your older house more attractive and maintains your price. The only way building new houses would hurt the value of yours would be if they build in an area where there is no demand for any more houses - unlikely, given that the house builder is answerable to shareholders who would question why they'd built in a site which offers no returns. You're in the politics thread mate. All that would be relevant if we were in the public sector thread. There is not a cat in hells chance the government (labour or Tory) would research and impliment a housing scheme that would improve the area. They'd contract it out to the cheapest company that could deliver the numbers. Only kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Also, very few new build improve the area. Most are cheap and boxy looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 The only way building new houses would hurt the value of yours would be if they build in an area where there is no demand for any more houses - unlikely, given that the house builder is answerable to shareholders who would question why they'd built in a site which offers no returns. Quoted this seperatly as fundamentally this is where you are incorrect. There is currently very little demand everywhere - hence the help to buy schemes. So adding supply will have a massive affect on current sellers in that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4386 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Quoted this seperatly as fundamentally this is where you are incorrect. There is currently very little demand everywhere - hence the help to buy schemes. So adding supply will have a massive affect on current sellers in that area. Theres enormous demand - the scheme is "needed" because the fucking banks won't lend without the guarantees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Theres enormous demand - the scheme is "needed" because the fucking banks won't lend without the guarantees. Scroll back and read my posts mate. You'll find we agree on this. No mortgage = no buyer = no demand There is very little demand because banks aren't lending. As you've highlighted there's plenty of people wanting to buy they just need help accessing the competitive rates. Hence the help to buy scheme. Renton thinks to kick start the housing market the government need to build more homes (i.e. create more supply). While Padlock thinks the government scheme to fix this issue is a bad thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30611 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Link or shut the f**k up Take your pick http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=10613 You're a grown man afraid to type the word 'fuck' on a message board, ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil 6 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Take your pick http://www.toontastic.net/board/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_activity&mid=10613 You're a grown man afraid to type the word 'fuck' on a message board, ffs. You are clearly an idiot. Back it up with a link or stay a mug. You're a grown man making troll snipes on a forum. how fucking sad are you! what a loser... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonatine 11377 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monroe Transfer 0 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 popcorn.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 (edited) Scroll back and read my posts mate. You'll find we agree on this. No mortgage = no buyer = no demand There is very little demand because banks aren't lending. As you've highlighted there's plenty of people wanting to buy they just need help accessing the competitive rates. Hence the help to buy scheme. Renton thinks to kick start the housing market the government need to build more homes (i.e. create more supply). While Padlock thinks the government scheme to fix this issue is a bad thing! The housing market is not like the confectionary business. Demand is driven by need there is a constant need for housing due to a rising population. Ergo demand is high. For the purposes of the housing market the lack of mortgage is a part of the supply chain. Therefore no mortgages = no supply not no demand as you put forward in your model. Edited October 6, 2013 by Kevin Carr's Gloves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30611 Posted October 6, 2013 Share Posted October 6, 2013 You are clearly an idiot. Back it up with a link or stay a mug. You're a grown man making troll snipes on a forum. how fucking sad are you! what a loser... 2.1% rise says it all really. Cheerio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now