UK House Prices Forecast 2014 to 2018 - Conclusion

[biffvernon]

Thankyou, that is much better. .

Although it is not really the property owners who have felt the greatest benefits of the artificially bloated housing market. As pointed out much earlier in this thread by several other people, owners only gain if they have multiple properties to sell, or are downsizing, or are moving to areas where property prices are relatively lower. The real winners, every time, are the banks. The banks even win when they get it all catastrophically wrong, because the supposedly-socialist Gordon Brown decided to socialise their losses instead of allowing them to go bust. This is not just "bad", but a vicious, chronic disease at the heart of our economic system.

There you are - I agree with you absolutely.

When you say

House price inflation is a bad thing, not a mere "distraction"

I say that it is a Bad Thing and a distraction. Both. At the same time. The point that I was making was that global warming is so important that social ills such as the effects of house price inflation pale into insignificance, and is therefore a distraction. Also, house price inflation by itself, is a distraction, in that it may obscure the underlying structural social inequalities. It's the symptom not the disease. Rather that concentrate on house prices in themselves we need to take a broader view of affordability and the degree to which mortgage payments and rents represent transfers of wealth form the many to the few.

[woodburner]

On the issue, I still like the Land Value Tax. Mostly intended to open up unused land, could be of relevance in terms of home building.

A human's point of view. Land is never unused, as long as it hasn't been poisoned by human activity, something will live there. Probably with more rights than humans have to concrete over it.

One of the strongest argument against the LVT is that it would encourage green field building, however there's a lot to be said for reclaiming properties and land that simply sit empty because there is no penalty for simply sitting on them. I'm sure we could deal with that issue with exemptions - lots of exemptions for nature, none for second home owners.

I agree about second home owners, especially those who think it's ok to have a holiday home which remains empty for much of the year. With bits of land, you would find more living on a brown field site than you would living in an area of agricultural monoculture, euphemistically termed "green field sites".

I suspect some of the land for housing problem would not occur if it were not for the significant numbers of immigrants arriving over the recent years, and the results of persistent bonking by the resident population.

[clv101]

...and the results of persistent bonking by the resident population.

The UK replacement level of fertility is 2.07. The current fertility rate is fluctuating between 1.90 and 1.94, ie lower than replacement.

[AndySir]

...and the results of persistent bonking by the resident population.

The UK replacement level of fertility is 2.07. The current fertility rate is fluctuating between 1.90 and 1.94, ie lower than replacement.

Maybe persistence was a quality of the bonking, as in 'AndySir is a very... persistent bonker'.

[woodburner]

We need a reduction level, not a maintenance level. The land cannot support the population in the UK. The way we do keep going is to fleece the poor in other countries.

[biffvernon]

UK Dwellings Population Persons per dwelling
1951 14117000 50225000 3.56
2011 27614000 63182000 2.29

[UndercoverElephant]

Thankyou, that is much better. .

Although it is not really the property owners who have felt the greatest benefits of the artificially bloated housing market. As pointed out much earlier in this thread by several other people, owners only gain if they have multiple properties to sell, or are downsizing, or are moving to areas where property prices are relatively lower. The real winners, every time, are the banks. The banks even win when they get it all catastrophically wrong, because the supposedly-socialist Gordon Brown decided to socialise their losses instead of allowing them to go bust. This is not just "bad", but a vicious, chronic disease at the heart of our economic system.

There you are - I agree with you absolutely.

When you say

House price inflation is a bad thing, not a mere "distraction"

I say that it is a Bad Thing and a distraction. Both. At the same time. The point that I was making was that global warming is so important that social ills such as the effects of house price inflation pale into insignificance, and is therefore a distraction.

Well, that's where you risk causing major arguments, Biff. The problem is that you are speaking about a social ill that is blighting the lives of other people, rather than yourself, and that means that if you go around saying that they "pale into insignificance" then you are going to draw serious flak from the people whose lives are being blighted. What are you gaining from saying things like this? Nothing, as far as I can tell. But you are definitely creating a situation where serious and nasty arguments break out, so why not just keep it to yourself? When it's a social ill that is actually affecting your own life, rather than other people's - that's the time to open your mouth and declare it to be comparatively insignificant.

Also, house price inflation by itself, is a distraction, in that it may obscure the underlying structural social inequalities. It's the symptom not the disease. Rather that concentrate on house prices in themselves we need to take a broader view of affordability and the degree to which mortgage payments and rents represent transfers of wealth form the many to the few.

Certainly it is part of a more complicated picture.

[biffvernon]

Well, that's where you risk causing major arguments, Biff. The problem is that you are speaking about a social ill that is blighting the lives of other people, rather than yourself, and that means that if you go around saying that they "pale into insignificance" then you are going to draw serious flak from the people whose lives are being blighted.

Where's the argument? We agree! I am saying that this social ill is a Bad Thing. Yes, I'm saying is that global warming is a worse thing. Global warming means 8 billion people may die. Unfair distribution of wealth means a lot of people have worse housing than they would in a fairer world. Where's the argument?

What should we make of the historical changes in the housing/population statistics?

[peaceful_life]

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.

I'm not sure where you're saying something about physics (entropy) or spirtuality (fixing "us") here. Or both maybe? This is not an either/or anyway. There is nothing stopping me attacking these problems from multiple angles at the same time - practical, spiritual and ideological.

You're not attacking them by venting at, Biff, besides...'attacking' is a bad philosophy, eat you from the inside it will.

[biffvernon]

I built a house for somebody who couldn't afford to buy one. Does that count?

[biffvernon]

I built a house for somebody who couldn't afford to buy one. Does that count?

No, that's meddling in grandeur in relative terms to the needy.

So...are you doing anything for the people?

Hmmm... who are 'the people'?
Would demonstrating to others the practicalities of building a house at a materials cost of about £1000 count?

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, that's where you risk causing major arguments, Biff. The problem is that you are speaking about a social ill that is blighting the lives of other people, rather than yourself, and that means that if you go around saying that they "pale into insignificance" then you are going to draw serious flak from the people whose lives are being blighted.

Where's the argument? We agree! I am saying that this social ill is a Bad Thing. Yes, I'm saying is that global warming is a worse thing.

The problem is best illustrated by a comparison I've already made. Imagine I had written this:

"Where's the argument? We agree! I am saying slavery is a Bad Thing. Yes, I am saying global warming is a worse thing."

The above may be true, but unless I'm a slave myself then it would not be wise to go around saying it, would it? Because if I did go around saying it, especially in the company of people who are actually slaves, people would be likely to think I was a bit of a smug, arrogant, privileged arsehole, wouldn't they? Better just to say "Slavery is a Bad Thing. Global Warming is a Bad Thing" and leave it at that.

What this boils down to is a social convention. I'm pretty sure you would not say "Child rape is a bad thing, but global warming is worse", would you? Even if it was true, you wouldn't think it was appropriate to say it. But your enthusiasm for saying things like "house price inflation is bad, but global warming is worse" makes it look like you don't think house price inflation is all that bad, and that makes you look like somebody who has had things a little too easy in their own life and who is under-estimating the seriousness of the problems house price inflation causes for people who are permanently locked out of the housing market because of it. It looks like you simply do not understand what it feels like to see the lion's share of your hard-earned money going to pay off the mortgage on some rich bastard's third (or twentieth in the case of one member of this forum) property, and knowing there is nothing you can do to get out of this trap, and that a lot of people who are already rather well off (e.g BiffVernon) are doing just fine out of the current system.

It's the same problem with your stated views on immigration, except that case is even worse. You are saying "yes, let them all in!", safe in the knowledge that most of them are going to end up in places you don't go to, and taking jobs from people who aren't you. Again, it looks like you simply do not understand the real-world impact of these things on the poorer members of your own society. For you it is just words. For other people, it's their lives being screwed up.

[vtsnowedin]

Borrow money from whom?

Good question. Only one possible answer, ultimately: banks, and central banks, who get to create it out of thin air.

If you destroy the private sector there will be no wealth being generated to borrow or tax.

I'll ask you the same question: why does the government have to borrow or raise taxes? Why can't the government print the money it needs, instead of allowing private banks to create the money supply and then loan it into the economy at interest?

The government can only print unbacked money for a relatively short time before the money becomes worthless. They are about at the limit of this QE crap now and the day of reckoning will not be pretty.
The economy is not a zero sum game. crops grow, labor energy and raw materials are combined into products worth more then the sum of the parts. The total wealth increases if it is not taxed away. And building a house and renting it out is not unearned income there is investment of both capital land and labor and the return is not certain.
If you had your way you would tax the rich at 95 percent which would take away the means of them continuing to grow wealth so there would be no billionaires to tax. Much better to actually tax them at a real fifteen percent and let them reinvest the rest so the pile you tax each year is bigger.
Life is not fair and there is nothing you can do to make it so.

[biffvernon]

You're right, vt, but 95% or 15%? From the European perspective we find that somewhere between the two figures you suggest seems to work pretty well. Much of northern Europe seems to have managed fairly well with marginal tax rates around 50% and when we look at the US level of public services and the spread of wealth distribution there, we incline towards a higher, rather than a lower figure.

[vtsnowedin]

You're right, vt, but 95% or 15%? From the European perspective we find that somewhere between the two figures you suggest seems to work pretty well. Much of northern Europe seems to have managed fairly well with marginal tax rates around 50% and when we look at the US level of public services and the spread of wealth distribution there, we incline towards a higher, rather than a lower figure.

It is hard to fifty percent out of a rich man. He will devote five percent to accountants, tax lawyers, and political contributions to lower his bill and he can let winning investments ride as the capital gains only come due when you sell and settle up.
Other then your National health service what great service are you getting for your tax money?