UK House Prices Forecast 2014 to 2018 - Conclusion

[UndercoverElephant]

I was with you right up until the last sentence

Well, that's progress.

But then you interpret the last sentence in exactly the opposite way in which it was meant. I agree with you about the importance of everybody being able to afford adequate housing.

Stop playing word games, Mr Vernon. What is it about my posts that you don't understand? I have not been speaking about "everybody being able to afford adequate housing." I have very specifically been talking about the difference between renting and owning, and the role of house prices in determining who gets to do what. You have ignored that (again) and agreed with me about something I didn't say, and I didn't say it because it glosses over the very distinction I have been trying to get you to acknowledge.

And you wonder why I get angry with you? If you want me to stop getting angry, then stop playing these games. Instead, engage with what I actually posted.

My point was that with relative stable numbers of houses and people, the number of people in the bad position of not being able to afford adequate housing is not much affected by changes in house prices or interest rates. Of course it's bad for those people that are affected, but even for these it's probably other factors that are more important, so I warn about giving undue attention to these matters. Due attention is fine; it's the undue attention I wrote about.

I know what your point was, Mr Vernon. Do you know what mine is??

[biffvernon]

Nah, I'm lost.

What concerns me is this sentence:

He apparently either doesn't understand what reality is like for the poor in the UK, or he doesn't care.

It may appear like that to you but that I don't understand what reality is like for the poor in the UK, or that I don't care is factually incorrect. Until you accept that I guess we may not be able to have a rational discussion.

[extractorfan]

The atmosphere of the PS forum has deteriorated since the stop EU migrants thread. Sure it's been heated and attacking on occasions in the past but it's an almost constant thing now.

The way I read Biff's post was that we are not going to see hoards of homeless people whether house prices rise or fall as there is x amount of housing stock that isn't going to sit empty, nothing more. I didn't read anything that suggested Biff thought anything in particular about renting versus owning, just merely pointing out that people shouldn't get worked up to the point of being hysterical about these things.

OK. I agree that the atmosphere has deteriorated, and wish it had not. However, I also wish that Biff would stop posting the kinds of things that provoked myself and SteveCook to respond in the way that we did. Unfortunately I think this is a sign of things to come as the standard of living in the western world deteriorates in the coming years. It is going to be one of the defining characteristics of the post-peak world, as the people at the bottom of the wealth pyramid get ever-more desperate about their own future even as the ecological/sustainability situation continues to deteriorate.

There are some clear common factors between the argument in the EU immigration thread and the debate in this one. It's exactly the same attitude that set off the response from me here as there. I understand that Biff was making a point about homelessness and the comparitive numbers of houses and people. The problem was that at the same time he described house price movements as "a distraction", which really does sound like he doesn't think it matters very much. The common factor between this and the immigration thread is that it matters much more to poor people, who are mainly concentrated in urban areas, than it does to wealthy rural folk like Biff Vernon. He apparently either doesn't understand what reality is like for the poor in the UK, or he doesn't care. And he also does not appear to be able to take on board that he comes across like this (because he keeps on doing the same thing.)

He responds to what we say by claiming we must be misunderstanding what he posts. And yet when I go back and read them, they still appear to be saying the same thing to me. It still looks like he doesn't understand what it is like to be a poor, urban-dwelling person in the UK, or doesn't care. If he was a Tory, this would not bother me - I'd just despise him like I despise them, but I wouldn't waste any effort getting upset about what he posts or trying to change his mind. But he isn't a Tory. He claims to be a socialist and an environmentalist. That causes me a major problem, and leads to big arguments.

I think what he calls a distraction you see as something of a more important issue than he. I actually also see it as a distraction, but for different reasons from Biff. I'm not a Biff apologiser, in fact I expect he'd not like my politics, but I do think his posts are genuine and his opinion is valid. He proposes a way of living that is possible, not something I personally would like. It's the same (to me) with what you post and SC.

I don't believe in the right left, Tory labour thing any more, it ended in 1997 when Blair got rid of clause 4. Now we have a massive political problem, a massive economic problem and a massive environmental problem. For some time I have thought that some problems, like this, don't have solutions, but like Biff I live in hope.

As for house prices, they could indeed go to a million pounds for a cardboard box in Chelsea, but only if there are enough people with a million pounds to pay for them (or lend into existence if you like). The real problem is that there is less wealth to go round because fossil fuel energy = money and as there are vastly more poor people in the world then in the future there will be exponentially more poor people that are even poorer than today.

To cap it all, Climate Change is going to f*ck us up totally, but probably not enough in the current generations lifetime to make us actually do something about it as it will always seem to be someone else's problem, until we are all dead.

But I still hope.

[UndercoverElephant]

Nah, I'm lost.

Well, then maybe you need to pay close attention to what I'm posting, because what just happened is a perfect example of what is causing Steve and myself to repeatedly lose our tempers with you specifically.

What concerns me is this sentence:

He apparently either doesn't understand what reality is like for the poor in the UK, or he doesn't care.

It may appear like that to you but that I don't understand what reality is like for the poor in the UK, or that I don't care is factually incorrect. Until you accept that I guess we may not be able to have a rational discussion.

Well, let's unpack it.

UndercoverElephant and SteveCook are neither stupid nor ignorant. We are capable of understanding very complex topics and in my case I spent three years studying philosophy, which is mostly about very careful analysis of complex arguments. I made several posts in this thread which explained at great length why your initial contribution smacked of "casual indifference" to the plight of poorer people in the UK. I explained why rises in house prices have a very large impact on anybody from the poorer half of society, because it condemns them to rent slavery. I accused you of failing to acknowledge this, and that this is why it appeared that you do not understand, or don't care, about inequality in our society.

How did you respond to this? You responded by telling me that you "agreed with me that everybody should have access to affordable housing." Given that you are talking to a philosophy graduate who you know is neither stupid nor ignorant, why did you even bother trying this sort of sleight-of-hand parlour game? Did you think that I wouldn't notice that what you are "agreeing" to is not what I said, and that it glosses over the very distinction I was asking you to recognise? Did you think I wouldn't care that instead of acknowledging, or even responding to my actual point, you have implied that I said something entirely different instead?

It has been explained to you repeatedly that you do this, and you are not stupid either, so why do you continue doing it?

Here's how to stop these problems, Biff.

(1) READ what Steve and I actually post.
(2) THINK about what we actually post.
(3) Remind yourself that we are NOT STUPID, and are not likely to be fooled by silly word-games like that described above.
(4) Respond to what we actually post.

Have a go now. Please respond to the actual point I've made in this thread about the relevance of house price inflation to structual inequalities in society. You could actually do a great deal to improve the atmosphere on this board if you did as I ask, but I fully expect that I'm going to get something else as a response instead. Probably something smug, or something which involves a major failure to address what I'm actually saying to you.

[UndercoverElephant]

The atmosphere of the PS forum has deteriorated since the stop EU migrants thread. Sure it's been heated and attacking on occasions in the past but it's an almost constant thing now.

The way I read Biff's post was that we are not going to see hoards of homeless people whether house prices rise or fall as there is x amount of housing stock that isn't going to sit empty, nothing more. I didn't read anything that suggested Biff thought anything in particular about renting versus owning, just merely pointing out that people shouldn't get worked up to the point of being hysterical about these things.

OK. I agree that the atmosphere has deteriorated, and wish it had not. However, I also wish that Biff would stop posting the kinds of things that provoked myself and SteveCook to respond in the way that we did. Unfortunately I think this is a sign of things to come as the standard of living in the western world deteriorates in the coming years. It is going to be one of the defining characteristics of the post-peak world, as the people at the bottom of the wealth pyramid get ever-more desperate about their own future even as the ecological/sustainability situation continues to deteriorate.

There are some clear common factors between the argument in the EU immigration thread and the debate in this one. It's exactly the same attitude that set off the response from me here as there. I understand that Biff was making a point about homelessness and the comparitive numbers of houses and people. The problem was that at the same time he described house price movements as "a distraction", which really does sound like he doesn't think it matters very much. The common factor between this and the immigration thread is that it matters much more to poor people, who are mainly concentrated in urban areas, than it does to wealthy rural folk like Biff Vernon. He apparently either doesn't understand what reality is like for the poor in the UK, or he doesn't care. And he also does not appear to be able to take on board that he comes across like this (because he keeps on doing the same thing.)

He responds to what we say by claiming we must be misunderstanding what he posts. And yet when I go back and read them, they still appear to be saying the same thing to me. It still looks like he doesn't understand what it is like to be a poor, urban-dwelling person in the UK, or doesn't care. If he was a Tory, this would not bother me - I'd just despise him like I despise them, but I wouldn't waste any effort getting upset about what he posts or trying to change his mind. But he isn't a Tory. He claims to be a socialist and an environmentalist. That causes me a major problem, and leads to big arguments.

I think what he calls a distraction you see as something of a more important issue than he. I actually also see it as a distraction, but for different reasons from Biff. I'm not a Biff apologiser, in fact I expect he'd not like my politics, but I do think his posts are genuine and his opinion is valid. He proposes a way of living that is possible, not something I personally would like. It's the same (to me) with what you post and SC.

I don't believe in the right left, Tory labour thing any more, it ended in 1997 when Blair got rid of clause 4. Now we have a massive political problem, a massive economic problem and a massive environmental problem. For some time I have thought that some problems, like this, don't have solutions, but like Biff I live in hope.

As for house prices, they could indeed go to a million pounds for a cardboard box in Chelsea, but only if there are enough people with a million pounds to pay for them (or lend into existence if you like). The real problem is that there is less wealth to go round because fossil fuel energy = money and as there are vastly more poor people in the world then in the future there will be exponentially more poor people that are even poorer than today.

You are equating money, wealth and energy. But money is not the same thing as wealth. It may well be true that there is less wealth (and energy) to go around, but it is clearly not true that there is less money to go around. If the latter was true, house prices would be falling instead of rising.

I agree with you that Blair/Brown messed up politics in the UK by detaching the Labour party from its primary reason for existing.

To cap it all, Climate Change is going to f*ck us up totally, but probably not enough in the current generations lifetime to make us actually do something about it as it will always seem to be someone else's problem, until we are all dead.

But I still hope.

Hope for what?

[Tarrel]

Why couldn't the government just print the money it needs? Why should the government have to borrow money at all?

To maintain integrity of the sovereign balance sheet.

Borrow money to build state housing; houses appear as an asset on one side. Borrowed money appears as a liability on the other side. The balance sheet balances.

Create money out of thin air to build state housing; houses appear as an asset on one side. Nothing to balance on other side.

OK.

All hell breaks loose. Currency goes down the toilet.

Why?

Because things don't add up. Assets appear to have been created out of nowhere. Investors (in £ or government bonds) smell a rat and lose confidence, leading to a sell-off. This results in a fall in the currency or, in the case of bonds, a raising of the interest rate.

This is a scenario, I know. We've been printing money regardless for a few years now and armageddon hasn't yet happened. The difference is that the money is going into the banking system, rather than into the government's hands. Nevertheless, I think we're all "watching this space" to see when the whole QE bubble will burst.

[peaceful_life]

Nah, I'm lost.

Well, then maybe you need to pay close attention to what I'm posting, because what just happened is a perfect example of what is causing Steve and myself to repeatedly lose our tempers with you specifically.

What concerns me is this sentence:

He apparently either doesn't understand what reality is like for the poor in the UK, or he doesn't care.

It may appear like that to you but that I don't understand what reality is like for the poor in the UK, or that I don't care is factually incorrect. Until you accept that I guess we may not be able to have a rational discussion.

Well, let's unpack it.

UndercoverElephant and SteveCook are neither stupid nor ignorant. We are capable of understanding very complex topics and in my case I spent three years studying philosophy, which is mostly about very careful analysis of complex arguments. I made several posts in this thread which explained at great length why your initial contribution smacked of "casual indifference" to the plight of poorer people in the UK. That point made it very clear that rises in house prices have a very large impact on anybody from the poorer half of society, because it condemns them to rent slavery. I accused you of failing to acknowledge this, and that this is why it appeared that you do not understand, or don't care, about inequality in our society.

How did you respond to this? You responded by telling me that you "agreed with me that everybody should have access to affordable housing." Given that you are talking to a philosophy graduate who you know is neither stupid or ignorant, why did you even bother trying this sort of low-level sleight-of-hand parlour game? Did you think that I wouldn't notice that what you are "agreeing" to is not what I said, and that it glosses over the very distinction I was asking you to recognise? Did you think I wouldn't care that instead of acknowledging, or even responding to my actual point, you have implied that I said something entirely different instead?

It has been explained to you repeatedly that you do this, and you are not stupid either, so why do you continue doing it?

Here's how to stop these problems, Biff.

(1) READ what Steve and I actually post.
(2) THINK about what we actually post.
(3) Remind yourself that we are NOT STUPID, and are not likely to be fooled by silly word-games like that described above.
(4) Respond to what we actually post.

Have a go now. Please respond to the actual point I've made in this thread about the relevance of house price inflation to structual inequalities in society. You could actually do a great deal to improve the atmosphere on this board if you did as I ask, but I fully expect that I'm going to get something else as a response instead. Probably something smug, or something which involves a major failure to address what I'm actually saying to you.

UE, I don't want to embroil myself in the angst here, it's just a genuine question. Rather than give yourself hemorrhoids playing linguistically intellectual jenga with, Biff, wouldn't you find it far more cathartic to put a plan into action to try to address social housing?

[UndercoverElephant]

UE, I don't want to embroil myself in the angst here, it's just a genuine question. Rather than give yourself hemorrhoids playing linguistically intellectual jenga with, Biff, wouldn't you find it far more cathartic to put a plan into action to try to address social housing?

No, because the reality on the ground can't significantly change until the ideology underpinning it changes. This "intellectual jenga" is part of a more general "war of ideas" that has been going on for a very long time, but which in recent years has spilled out of academia and into places like this on the internet. The existing economic/monetary/political system, and the prevailing ideology in the modern western world, are a rigged game being presented by the powers that be and the mainstream media as an honest game (i.e. not only do free markets not solve socio-cultural problems in the way the old political right and economic/political elites claim they do, but we don't even live in a truly free market anyway).

There are some things I do in "real life" which I do find cathartic. I can help to do environmental conservation work in my local area, and I can teach people about fungi and ecology, for example. But when it comes to big social, economic and political problems then working on the ground to try to solve them is soul-destroying once you understand the underlying reasons why things are the way they are. I honestly believe the best contribution I can make to solving those problems is to contribute to increasing both my own and other people's understanding of what is wrong with that prevailing ideology, and what might be possible in terms of improving or replacing it. And right now that means trying to make sure that nobody is fooled by Biff Vernon into thinking that house price inflation is a mere "distraction" from more important things. I honestly believe that fixing our broken monetary/economic system so it serves the people instead of the banks is so important that without addressing it, trying to solve problems like climate change and social inequality is little more than a waste of time.

[UndercoverElephant]

To maintain integrity of the sovereign balance sheet.

Borrow money to build state housing; houses appear as an asset on one side. Borrowed money appears as a liability on the other side. The balance sheet balances.

Create money out of thin air to build state housing; houses appear as an asset on one side. Nothing to balance on other side.

OK.

All hell breaks loose. Currency goes down the toilet.

Why?

Because things don't add up. Assets appear to have been created out of nowhere. Investors (in £ or government bonds) smell a rat and lose confidence, leading to a sell-off. This results in a fall in the currency or, in the case of bonds, a raising of the interest rate.

This is a scenario, I know. We've been printing money regardless for a few years now and armageddon hasn't yet happened. The difference is that the money is going into the banking system, rather than into the government's hands.

But surely the investors will eventually suffer the same outcome regardless of whether the new money comes from banks or from the government? In both cases more and more money is being created. Why should one smell like a rat and the other not? If the answer is "the government has to pay back the borrowed money, at which point it will be destroyed" then you have to ask why the investors think this money can ever be paid back if the only way money is being created involves the simultaneous creation of even more debt! The truth is that even if we paid back all our debts, collectively, we'd have no money left in circulation but we'd still owe the banks money! If, on the other hand, the government creates money, then we can actually pay off the debt.

[Little John]

It will end with hyperinflation or hyperdeflation. It's just a matter of when. And when that happens there will be a 3rd World War.

This should read asset price hyperinflation or hyperdeflation.

All the money printed by QE isn't going into the real economy - it's gone into blowing bubbles into the financial sector and this is but one example of it. There are signs that the former is starting to take hold - in asset prices

Meanwhile, there is wage deflation going on - people are turning to payday lenders, such as Wonga who charge over 5000% APR just to cover day to day living as they are maxed out on everything else whilst the banks are getting their loans from HM Government at 0.1%

It's all geared in favour of the banksters

Asset price rises are the consequence of monetary inflation. In other words, the inflation of the money supply. In using the term "inflation" to so loosely describe a rise in prices of assets instead of it being a technically particular description in the supply of money that is chasing those assets (or velocity of money chasing those assets) you are falling into the trap of using a mangled understanding of the term "inflation" employed by successive governments, aided and abetted by the MSM, in order to take people's eye off the ball.

In terms of inflation of the money supply and it's consequent effect on asset prices, you must understand that it does not rain because the ground gets wet.

It's the other way around.

[peaceful_life]

UE, I don't want to embroil myself in the angst here, it's just a genuine question. Rather than give yourself hemorrhoids playing linguistically intellectual jenga with, Biff, wouldn't you find it far more cathartic to put a plan into action to try to address social housing?

No, because the reality on the ground can't significantly change until the ideology underpinning it changes. This "intellectual jenga" is part of a more general "war of ideas" that has been going on for a very long time, but which in recent years has spilled out of academia and into places like this on the internet. The existing economic/monetary/political system, and the prevailing ideology in the modern western world, are a rigged game being presented by the powers that be and the mainstream media as an honest game (i.e. not only do free markets not solve socio-cultural problems in the way the old political right and economic/political elites claim they do, but we don't even live in a truly free market anyway).

There are some things I do in "real life" which I do find cathartic. I can help to do environmental conservation work in my local area, and I can teach people about fungi and ecology, for example. But when it comes to big social, economic and political problems then working on the ground to try to solve them is soul-destroying once you understand the underlying reasons why things are the way they are. I honestly believe the best contribution I can make to solving those problems is to contribute to increasing both my own and other people's understanding of what is wrong with that prevailing ideology, and what might be possible in terms of improving or replacing it. And right now that means trying to make sure that nobody is fooled by Biff Vernon into thinking that house price inflation is a mere "distraction" from more important things. I honestly believe that fixing our broken monetary/economic system so it serves the people instead of the banks is so important that without addressing it, trying to solve problems like climate change and social inequality is little more than a waste of time.

And by changing things on the ground we change the ideology.
I do comprehend the lineage of the underpinnings and I think it's deeper than ideology, it has more to do with entropy, but I'll not digress.

We cannot fix the monetary system until we fix 'us', we can use it as a tool to assist that process, but ultimately it's an 'us' thing.

Feck it, set up a community land trust, do the P2P thing, get the grants, get people back on the land, teach some stuff..and then say......'there's fkn equity for you'

You'l not conquer the 'hlaford' via pixels my friend.

[peaceful_life]

It will end with hyperinflation or hyperdeflation. It's just a matter of when. And when that happens there will be a 3rd World War.

This should read asset price hyperinflation or hyperdeflation.

All the money printed by QE isn't going into the real economy - it's gone into blowing bubbles into the financial sector and this is but one example of it. There are signs that the former is starting to take hold - in asset prices

Meanwhile, there is wage deflation going on - people are turning to payday lenders, such as Wonga who charge over 5000% APR just to cover day to day living as they are maxed out on everything else whilst the banks are getting their loans from HM Government at 0.1%

It's all geared in favour of the banksters

Asset price rises are the consequence of monetary inflation. In other words, the inflation of the money supply. In using the term "inflation" to so loosely describe a rise in prices of assets instead of it being a technically particular description in the supply of money that is chasing those assets (of velocity of money chasing those assets) you are falling into the trap of using a mangled understanding of the term "inflation" employed by successive governments, aided and abetted by the MSM, in order to take people's eye off the ball.

In terms of inflation of the money supply and it's consequent effect on asset prices, you must understand that it does not rain because the ground gets wet.

It's the other way around.

Hasn't, Steve Keen, already nailed this (economics is bunk) with the modern debt jubilee?

[Little John]

This should read asset price hyperinflation or hyperdeflation.

All the money printed by QE isn't going into the real economy - it's gone into blowing bubbles into the financial sector and this is but one example of it. There are signs that the former is starting to take hold - in asset prices

Meanwhile, there is wage deflation going on - people are turning to payday lenders, such as Wonga who charge over 5000% APR just to cover day to day living as they are maxed out on everything else whilst the banks are getting their loans from HM Government at 0.1%

It's all geared in favour of the banksters

Asset price rises are the consequence of monetary inflation. In other words, the inflation of the money supply. In using the term "inflation" to so loosely describe a rise in prices of assets instead of it being a technically particular description in the supply of money that is chasing those assets (of velocity of money chasing those assets) you are falling into the trap of using a mangled understanding of the term "inflation" employed by successive governments, aided and abetted by the MSM, in order to take people's eye off the ball.

In terms of inflation of the money supply and it's consequent effect on asset prices, you must understand that it does not rain because the ground gets wet.

It's the other way around.

Hasn't, Steve Keen, already nailed this (economics is bunk) with the modern debt jubilee?

Let me hear you nail it

[peaceful_life]

Asset price rises are the consequence of monetary inflation. In other words, the inflation of the money supply. In using the term "inflation" to so loosely describe a rise in prices of assets instead of it being a technically particular description in the supply of money that is chasing those assets (of velocity of money chasing those assets) you are falling into the trap of using a mangled understanding of the term "inflation" employed by successive governments, aided and abetted by the MSM, in order to take people's eye off the ball.

In terms of inflation of the money supply and it's consequent effect on asset prices, you must understand that it does not rain because the ground gets wet.

It's the other way around.

Hasn't, Steve Keen, already nailed this (economics is bunk) with the modern debt jubilee?

Let me hear you nail it

Me?......you want be to whack an abstract square into a reality hole?...no can do, but I thought, Steve Keen, came somewhere kinda close to utilising the existing mechanisms with the Jubilee, no?

[Little John]

Me?......you want be to whack an abstract square into a reality hole?...no can do, but I thought, Steve Keen, came somewhere kinda close to utilising the existing mechanisms with the Jubilee, no?

I'm sorry PL, but if you are going to to state that a classical understanding of supply and demand theory, as it relates to monetary supply and the consequent demand for it, is bunk by citing the work of a given academic, then the very least you are obliged to also do is provide a basic schematic of that refutation. If you are unable to do so due to a lack of understanding of even the basic principles of his work as it relates to your citing of it, then you are in no position to be citing it.