UK House Prices Forecast 2014 to 2018 - Conclusion

[biffvernon]

Exactly so. The houses don't stand empty and the people, mostly, have roofs over their heads, whatever the prices and interest rates. Bricks are less volatile than money.

Which makes one wonder whether any of it matters much, except of course, to those not included in the 'mostly'.

[SleeperService]

The BoE and HMG seemed to have settled on raising the interest rate when un-employment falls below 7%. What relevance that has is open to debate.

If they do this then the last few years will look like a blip compared to the contraction in the economy as nearly all the remaining 'disposable income' is wiped out.

IMHO the result will be Thatcher's return to Victorian principles completed. Workers renting what they can afford, no job security et al. The sad fact is that the Great British Public will just accept it....

[UndercoverElephant]

Which makes one wonder whether any of it matters much, except of course, to those not included in the 'mostly'.

Sorry, Mr Vernon, but that is more arrogant, thoughtless middle-class bullshit. Does it matter whether you own your home, have to spend a lifetime paying interest to a bank that created out of thin air the money you had to borrow to buy a home, or spend your life in rent slavery paying off somebody-else's mortgage and having nothing to show at the end of it? Yes, Mr Vernon, who owns his own property, it DOES matter, and I think you should learn to think a little harder before you write stuff like this. Yes, having a roof over your head matters a great deal if you are one of the few people who is actually homeless. But if you're "wondering" whether it matters whether you rent for your whole life or own property then you have failed to give the matter sufficient consideration.

[UndercoverElephant]

The sad fact is that the Great British Public will just accept it....

Probably, and I agree this is the saddest thing about it. We are a democracy. Only public stupidity/ignorance/apathy allows the majority to be screwed by a tiny minority at the top. But I also wonder whether there is only so far even the Great British Public can be pushed. There have been a few occasions in the past when somebody tried to push them too far, most recently Thatcher's attempt to implement the Poll Tax, which ultimately led to her own downfall.

[UndercoverElephant]

Same old 2013 approach to disussion, critisise the poster rather than the idea. It is petty and becomes tedious.

And I find your own posts tedious, and Mr Vernon's deeply offensive. And actually, if you read what I wrote, I was attacking what he said. So long as he continues to post things which I find offensive, I will continue to respond as I see fit.

He might just as well have written this:

"Does slavery matter, in the end? I mean, provided the slave has enough to eat, somewhere to sleep in the warm and a roof over his head, why does it actually matter if he's a slave?"

Of course, the person writing this is not, and has never been, a slave...

It's offensive, and deserving of contempt, not respect. I respond as I do to Mr Vernon because rather than thinking what he posts is wrong, I find it out of order and morally reprehensible: "let them eat cake!", or rather "let them rent their homes!"

Yeah, I'm a troll, if that makes you feel better.

All you ever do is criticise other people. Not just me. You do it to everybody.

[woodburner]

We are a democracy

If only we were. We are pedalled the illusion of a democracy, we have elections, we might elect representatives on the basis of the statements they make. So far, so good. But then the buggers get into office based on statements like "We will be the greenest government ever", then take off their sheep's clothes and frack us all to death.

[biffvernon]

Which makes one wonder whether any of it matters much, except of course, to those not included in the 'mostly'.

Oh dear, UE, I have absolutely no idea how you can read into my post the exact opposite of what I write. How about a new year's resolution to drop the ad hominems and discuss things rationally?

I'm just raising the idea that, on the macro level, there are a certain number of houses and a certain number of people and these two are roughly aligned in a way that is more stable than house prices and interest rates, with the ratio of houses to people gradually increasing over time. So maybe we should not give undue attention to the volatile finances?

But, as I pointed out, individuals at the margin, can be made homeless and this is a BAD THING. Anyone who knows me would not be surprised I think that way.

[UndercoverElephant]

Which makes one wonder whether any of it matters much, except of course, to those not included in the 'mostly'.

Oh dear, UE, I have absolutely no idea how you can read into my post the exact opposite of what I write. How about a new year's resolution to drop the ad hominems and discuss things rationally?

I'm just raising the idea that, on the macro level, there are a certain number of houses and a certain number of people and these two are roughly aligned in a way that is more stable than house prices and interest rates, with the ratio of houses to people gradually increasing over time. So maybe we should not give undue attention to the volatile finances?

But, as I pointed out, individuals at the margin, can be made homeless and this is a BAD THING. Anyone who knows me would not be surprised I think that way.

This has nothing to do with homelessness. It is about house prices, rent slavery and the gap between the rich and poor, which is still getting bigger.

Do you understand why artificially-inflated house prices which benefit banks and their shareholders (the rich) at the same time as making property unaffordable for large numbers of people at the bottom is little better than slavery?

Your repeated explanation of what you mean ("Maybe we should not give undue attention to volatile finances") is more of the same thing. Undue attention? That suggests, quite clearly, that the level of house prices don't matter all that much. In other words you, who already owns his own home, are saying that it doesn't matter that people who are much poorer than you are condemned to rent slavery. Do you understand why this is offensive? It may not matter TO YOU - a comfortably well-off homeowner - but it makes all the difference in the world to a large number of people who are a lot less well off than you. This is why you are being accused of callous indifference. OK? This is not some minor accusation either. It is a serious accusation on a similar level as if you'd said something like "why is everyone getting so worked up about slavery?"

I am not going to apologise for taking offence at your comments. They are offensive.

If this is not what you meant then I suggest you need to try harder to make it clear exactly what you are saying, because there is nothing wrong with my English comprehension abilities.

I might add for anybody reading this who doesn't know the context: I am a homeowner. I own property on which there is no outstanding mortgage. I will not personally suffer all that much if house prices rise. The difference between Mr Vernon and myself is that I actually give a sh*t about justice in the wider society I am a part of, and Mr Vernon, apparently, does not, regardless of how much he claims that he does. Or perhaps it is simply that I know exactly what it feels like to be condemned to a life of rent slavery (I inherited the money to buy my house, and did not know beforehand that I would do so), and Mr Vernon, apparently, does not. Let them eat cake.

[Little John]

Which makes one wonder whether any of it matters much, except of course, to those not included in the 'mostly'.

Oh dear, UE, I have absolutely no idea how you can read into my post the exact opposite of what I write.

I read it in exactly the same way as UE and for exactly the same reasons.

[biffvernon]

Thanks guys, I thought I was on safe ground as this topic wasn't about immigrants.

If anybody can shed light on why anybody should think that "house prices have nothing to do with homelessness", or why anyone should imagine that I am "saying that it doesn't matter that people who are much poorer than me are condemned to rent slavery", or that I don't "give a sh*t about justice in the wider society", I'd be glad to hear from them.

Just for the record, I tend towards the extreme egalitarian left wing end of socialism/communism, think the banks should nationalised, and that there should massive wealth redistribution both within the UK and across the world. However, these things should not distract us from the much more urgent existential crisis that we are bringing upon ourselves through global warming. I'm thinking that undue concern about the financial situation in general and house prices/interest rates in particular, is one of these distractions. If anybody thinks this means that I don't care about people poorer than me...

I am ever hopeful but not optimistic that we can fix either, let alone both the issues of wealth distribution or global warming.

[3rdRock]

Interesting debate folks.

BTW, when did we all stop believing in peace on Earth and goodwill to all men?

[PS_RalphW]

I'm not sure on housing in the UK. (being a modest property owner my views are inevitably coloured).

House prices are high because

1. There are not enough houses where people want to live
This is partly because of the generational shift from north to south as we have de-industrialised.
2. The large building corporations ensure maximum profits from their land investments by corrupting the planning process and squashing building regulation reforms.
3. People are living separately more - therefore need more, smaller houses.
4. More people - partly demographic bulge and partly immigration .
5. Few people want to rent because the rents are so high and tenancy security low.
6. The rents are so high because the welfare state pays the rents of the poorest families so skewing the market and transferring tax payers money directly into the pockets of the property owning class - err, me included.
7. The property owning class then buy small, relatively affordable properties and extend them into mcmansions that no sane person would buy.
8. People desperate to buy are then encourages into life-long debt servicing by taking out ridiculously big mortgages at (currently) low interest rates. Supply and demand then drives house prices to whatever level the desperate can afford with no contingency for future rate rises, redundancies, etc.
9. The media report that rising house prices are a Good Thing without anyone thinking for a moment WHY?

I personally want stable house prices and a stable economy. I have made/inherited my pile and I am not greedy for more. I would be happy with steady price deflation (and even falling rents) because I am planning to live on less money as I prepare for power down, but collapse would do me no favours.

Just my biased 2p

[biffvernon]

I think you are right on all nine counts.

#6 might be worthy of elaboration:

6. The rents are so high because the welfare state pays the rents of the poorest families so skewing the market and transferring tax payers money directly into the pockets of the property owning class - err, me included.

Back in a day, when councils owned the council houses, the money was not transferred so directly to the property owning classes. Thatcher set the ball rolling to end that with the invention of 'housing benefit', which never got quite the same scrutiny of publicity as the 'right to buy'. Housing benefit was paid by the tax payer to the landlords (to benefit the poor, of course), a massive transfer payment from the many to the few and sold as mitigation for the bad effects of the council house sell-off.

It had the secondary effect of causing rents, and thus house prices, to be bid upwards. Whether this was actually a hidden intention of Thatcher and her colleagues at the time is open for speculation. Now that the system is so embedded it's quite hard to see an easy way to extricate ourselves from Housing benefits. Even to put a cap on payments, let alone stop it altogether, has disastrous effects on people caught on the wrong side.

The nationalisation of all rented property is probably not a vote-winning election strategy just now.

[vtsnowedin]

The nationalisation of all rented property is probably not a vote-winning election strategy just now.

Just imagine the bureaucracy it would take to administer that!! Talk about a jobs program, thousands of government employees to do what hundreds do today. Cost of course is no issue; the government could certainly deliver more and nicer space for less money then the private sector. Happens all the time.
Really Biff, think about it.

[biffvernon]

I have thought, vt, which is why I wrote that it "is probably not a vote-winning election strategy just now."

I hope you're not starting to read into my words the exact opposite of their meaning, too?

There has been a long history of socialist thinkers who have regarded a society in which the property owning classes make unearned incomes from folk who lack capital, was something to be avoided. I don't see a route to that sort societal change given our so called democratic voting system, hence it is probably not a vote-winning election strategy just now.