|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
Don't be so hard on construction companies. They're not generally my favourite clients, I confess, but remember that they acquire land to build on it. That's how they pay their bills and buy themselves ostentatious cars. If they bank the land for the future, or sell it on to someone else it's because they can't afford to build on it, or because it's not feasible to build on it (for example because there's no market for the houses), or because someone else has a better scheme than theirs.
There are lots of reasons why they might sell undeveloped land on at a profit without making the baby Jesus sad. For instance by their efforts and expertise they may have added to its value. They might have bought in other nearby bits of land as well which when assembled will enable something bigger and better to be built (but which perhaps they themselves aren't equipped to handle). They may have invested a lot of time, money and expertise in satisfying the council's concerns over ground conditions, ecology and so on which mean the land can now be built on immediately whereas previously that was only a possiblity.
But I'm afraid that giving public assets to someone for free, or at less than a full price, so as to help them to carry on their business IS a subsidy. The definition of "subsidy" doesn't alter depending on:
(a) whether the recipient is in business to make a fat smelly profit rather than being a terribly worthy charity, or
(b) whether the asset disposed of is a chunk of real estate or a chunk of money.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
The definition of "subsidy" doesn't alter depending on:
(a) whether the recipient is in business to make a fat smelly profit rather than being a terribly worthy charity, or
(b) whether the asset disposed of is a chunk of real estate or a chunk of money.
But in this case, private land ends up benefiting the public. Which is important.
(goes off whistling The World Turned Upside Down )
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
No, it's public land in all the circumstances we've been talking about. It requires conceptually that something we all own is given away to someone for them to use.
That someone might be a builder who would not otherwise be able to afford to develop some housing and who undertakes to do so, or it might be a charity whose aim is to bring disused houses into use or something similarly worthy. Subsidies aren't always a Bad Thing.
But they require a decision to be made, and preferably an informed decision based on facts and stripped of dogma and prejudice. The public money (or publicly owned asset that is worth money) given away is never going to be available for the public to use for any other purpose. If the subsidised sale of housing stock to council house tenants is something that you look back upon as one of the great disasters of 20th century public policy then I'd expect you to be quite uncomfortable with the solution that has recommended itself to you.
Billy Bragg would surely weep at the prospect. Or worse, sing.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
All I hear you saying is no, no, no.
The housing market is broken. The good, capitalist, supply-and-demand solution is to build enough new houses that the price of existing ones falls far enough that ordinary people can afford them again. Except all the good capitalists have got the laws and the land sewn up for their own benefit.
I appreciate you have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, but I worry not just for my children, but for the whole of their generation who'll end up buying into the two-jobs, work-all-hours, teeter-on-the-edge-of-disaster, pray-the-interest-rates-stay-down sort of life. It is unsustainable and wrong, and it needs to be changed.
(Apparently the Bard of Barking is voting LibDem this time around. Bit of a turn-up for the books.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(Apparently the Bard of Barking is voting LibDem this time around. Bit of a turn-up for the books.)
As he said he would years ago even when he was campaigning for Labour - he was a strong proponent of voting for the non-racist candidate most likely to keep the Tories out. Where he lived then (& presumably now) that was the Liberal
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I appreciate you have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, but I worry not just for my children, but for the whole of their generation who'll end up buying into the two-jobs, work-all-hours, teeter-on-the-edge-of-disaster, pray-the-interest-rates-stay-down sort of life. It is unsustainable and wrong, and it needs to be changed.
You mean this isn't "normal"...... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I worry not just for my children, but for the whole of their generation who'll end up buying into the two-jobs, work-all-hours, teeter-on-the-edge-of-disaster, pray-the-interest-rates-stay-down sort of life. It is unsustainable and wrong, and it needs to be changed.
Amen and hallelujah to that. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
One of the saddest things about aggressive capitalism is that, in the race to satisfy our desires through ceaseless competition, it ends up making us all anxious, exhausted, stressed, and losing out on the things that matter in life - the things that you cannot quantify on a balance sheet.
A good start would be to reject "growth", at least as measured in terms of GDP/GNP, and to focus on "slowth" - slowing down the way we live. E.g. If we were to cook food rather than buy it ready made and full of salt from the supermarket, growth and profits would decrease, but quality of life, creativity and health would increase. If we were to lend our lawnmower to the neighbours, and they lend us their strimmer, then growth and profits (not to mention use of metals, plastics etc) would decrease, but peace and security would increase (by the building up of social bonds through reciprocal gift-relationships).
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Turning building land over to non-profit housing co-ops, who'd then be able to sell the houses on at a decent price.
Sell them on to whom? I'd have thought that, once they enter the open market, all the problems of property speculation will sooner or later come into play - as Pottage points out, and as they did after the sale of council housing.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by phil2357:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They don't rule us. They govern on our behalf.
But the fact still remains that if I give taxation money to a government it is not me who decides what is done with it. I may influence who governs the country through my vote, but the actual decisions about how public money is spent are not made by me. Hence I cannot claim moral responsibility for them.
Or take a different line of reasoning: I live not too far away from a new hospital that is being built. I take it you are saying that we should see this as the government expressing our neighbourly concern for one another on our behalf. OK, but what about the public money spent on the war with Iraq? Are you prepared to take some personal responsibility for that?
The hospital - yes, very much so.
The war - no - the public mood was very much against it, as shown in demonstrations.
No government is going to get it right on every issue and no political party is going tick all the boxes - so a Christian has to support the party with the most boxes ticked, even if there are some policies that seem unChristian.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
George Lansbury summed it up: Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the "will of God."
To a certain extent I actually agree, but what political party
a.) consistently opposes market forces as the driving-force of our economy; and
b.) has some coherent alternative to offer?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The war - no - the public mood was very much against it, as shown in demonstrations.
No - all the demonstration showed is that there was a loud, highly motivated group that opposed it. That doesn't prove that 'the public' opposed it - unless the crowd calling for Jesus' death is sufficient to prove that 'the Jews' choose to execute Jesus.
Remember that the war had the support of the Conservatives. Admittedly they were probably misled about the evidence, as we all were, but they, and many of the newspapers, were in favour. Whatever the 1970s and 1980s should have taught us, it should include that there being a loud minority for something doesn't prove that the majority wants it.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - all the demonstration showed is that there was a loud, highly motivated group that opposed it.
Quite. Any photograph of an Iraq War protest will almost certainly show several Socialist Worker placards.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No - all the demonstration showed is that there was a loud, highly motivated group that opposed it.
Quite. Any photograph of an Iraq War protest will almost certainly show several Socialist Worker placards.
Very true, the SWP was there in force and almost in its entirety: about 300 of them. They cunningly produced many of the placards, which is an old Broad Left trick but the SWP didn't make up much of the protest however: even the Plod admits to 750,000 being present in London with substantial protests in Cardiff and Glasgow besides.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I'm not saying there weren't a lot of people there. I'm not suggesting they were all SWP. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that a majority of the population was opposed to the war. There are 60 million people in the UK. 2 million protested against it. Therefore - discounting 20m for children, OAPs and others unable to protest - we have 2 out of 40 protesting against. That's 5%. Rather less than the BNP polls ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
As the recent events in Thailand are showing, a large street demonstration does not form a good basis for government...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Turning building land over to non-profit housing co-ops, who'd then be able to sell the houses on at a decent price.
Sell them on to whom? I'd have thought that, once they enter the open market, all the problems of property speculation will sooner or later come into play - as Pottage points out, and as they did after the sale of council housing.
Would you buy a house for Ł250k that would be likely to be worth Ł150k in a few years time?
The whole idea of the project is to create a virtuous circle of descending house prices, by building more than the demand. Capitalist economics shouldn't be subject to speculation unless there are cartels (illegal), monopolies (likely to be broken up), or the commodity is scarce (last time I looked, neither bricks nor labour were in short supply).
Average prices have just gone up 10% in the last 12 months. How is this possible if the system is working to serve the consumers?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that a majority of the population was opposed to the war. ...
I take your point that the size of the protest on 15 February 2003 doesn't by itself prove that a majority of people in the UK opposed the war.
Ipsos Mori, however, found that "The final polls to be published before the war in Iraq started [...] all found a shift in public opinion in favour of British involvement in the war but still found a majority disapproving, both of military action and of Tony Blair's handling of the Iraq crisis."
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Nice idea Doc Tor; the problem is that the scale of new housing required is in practice inconceivable on this crowded island. The cities such as London and Manchester are pretty much full. The countryside immediately around them is valued for its recreational value. There's also the idea that we might want to keep a few farms going. There is probably a case for landing some more cities like Milton Keynes around the countryside - though there's a major challenge in getting employers to move such locations rather than take the logical step of relocating overseas if they are going to move at all. Even the US, with plenty of land, has seen house prices rise recently.
But overall you seem to be assuming there is a simple answer which noone has seriously considered, whereas of course there has been extended discussion of these issues in 'Housing Economics' for decades. That said, there is IMHO a good case for a big increase in council tax on larger premises and the ending of the discount for second homes (granted on the basis that they use less services, which is true).
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nice idea Doc Tor; the problem is that the scale of new housing required is in practice inconceivable on this crowded island. The cities such as London and Manchester are pretty much full. The countryside immediately around them is valued for its recreational value. There's also the idea that we might want to keep a few farms going.
Nice try. How about some facts?
"If the whole of England is a football pitch, all the built up land is the penalty area. Most of this is made up of gardens, roads, paths and railways. Housing would cover just a third of the centre circle." (from here )
So your use of 'crowded' and 'full' are particularly creative in this context.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
Would you all believe that I am sitting in the middle of the South Pacific watching the last British election debate on Aljezeera? Funny all world, isn't it.
Where are they holding it - it looks like a Town Hall and I gathered they were in Birmingham - but it looks a bit too colourful! Or is that just clever lighting?
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Nice try. How about some facts?
"If the whole of England is a football pitch, all the built up land is the penalty area. Most of this is made up of gardens, roads, paths and railways. Housing would cover just a third of the centre circle." (from here )
So your use of 'crowded' and 'full' are particularly creative in this context.
But that's the whole point; we can't build large, high density suburbs anywhere without access to existing cities. So the area available to build those suburbs is in the immediate vicinity of the penalty area, and not far beyond. You claim to live in Ultima Thule; which implies you have no experience of the realities of urban existence on a day to day basis...
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
we can't build large, high density suburbs anywhere without access to existing cities. So the area available to build those suburbs is in the immediate vicinity of the penalty area, and not far beyond.
Well, duh. Where else are you going to put the houses? That's why I'm also arguing for better transport links, or did you miss that bit?
quote:
You claim to live in Ultima Thule; which implies you have no experience of the realities of urban existence on a day to day basis...
Tyneside. Urban enough for you, Tory boy? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
we can't build large, high density suburbs anywhere without access to existing cities. So the area available to build those suburbs is in the immediate vicinity of the penalty area, and not far beyond.
Well, duh. Where else are you going to put the houses? That's why I'm also arguing for better transport links, or did you miss that bit?
Not a solution; the problem is that commuting times in the urban areas of Britain - with the probable exception of Newcastle - are already uncomfortably high. The idea of building suburbs further out and therefore requiring more commuting is not attractive. The fact that commuting times in London are higher can be sustained by the higher wages down there...
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
You claim to live in Ultima Thule; which implies you have no experience of the realities of urban existence on a day to day basis...
Tyneside. Urban enough for you, Tory boy?
Nope - not urban enough for me. Newcastle is a small city compared with the real LARGE cities of the UK, and it's problems are very different because of its history. So I stand by my claim that you don't know enough to comment. After all there are houses being demolished in Western Newcastle because NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE THERE; an concept inconceivable in any other urban area that I'm aware of.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Not a solution; the problem is that commuting times in the urban areas of Britain - with the probable exception of Newcastle - are already uncomfortably high. The idea of building suburbs further out and therefore requiring more commuting is not attractive. The fact that commuting times in London are higher can be sustained by the higher wages down there...
Same old same old. You clearly know jack shit about Tyneside, about the problems of simply getting across the river. You say that building 'burbs further out isn't the answer because of the commuting time - then you make the commute easier. You build in the centres of towns and cities. You invest in light railways, buses, dedicated cycle routes. You look for creative solutions. Solutions that are tailored for local use.
I've lived in the south-east (where my parents still live), I've lived in Sheffield, I'm a regular visitor to Manchester and Liverpool. You'll be suggesting I don't have experience of what it's like to live in a big city even if I claimed I spent 10 years on Trantor. You're just unable to come up with any sort of solution up to and including denying there's a problem.
Oh yes, and:
quote:
After all there are houses being demolished in Western Newcastle because NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE THERE; an concept inconceivable in any other urban area that I'm aware of.
I'd do some googling on "shrinking cities" to fill the yawning gaps in your awareness.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
All I hear you saying is no, no, no.
The housing market is broken. The good, capitalist, supply-and-demand solution is to build enough new houses that the price of existing ones falls far enough that ordinary people can afford them again. Except all the good capitalists have got the laws and the land sewn up for their own benefit.
I appreciate you have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, but I worry not just for my children, but for the whole of their generation who'll end up buying into the two-jobs, work-all-hours, teeter-on-the-edge-of-disaster, pray-the-interest-rates-stay-down sort of life. It is unsustainable and wrong, and it needs to be changed.
Then you're not listening. If you've got an alternative to the current arrangements that isn't pie in the sky I'll be all for it. But everything you propose carries a price tag in the hundreds of billions. Money that doesn't exist and would have many other worthy claims on its use if it did.
Trying to suggest that my objection to this daydreaming is based on my self interest is all very well I suppose, as a debating tactic at least. But from my perspective it isn't actually a solution, it's just posturing.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I'll take the hit on shrinking cities - I was only thinking of the UK. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
The issue is whether it is physically possible for there to be substantial population growth within sensible commuting distance of the city centre. I don't believe that is possible in our major urban areas except Newcastle. The provision of upgrades to the transport system may help. but not enough to alter the direction of house prices: as a result growing economic prosperity will lead to people throwing more money at their housing needs, with the result that prices will tend to continue to rise as growing demand faces stagnant supply.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Pottage - you seem to be stuck with the idea that this would be a massive net cost: what it would mean is less profit. I'm willing to take the consequences of the price of my house falling by a quarter or a half or more, if it means families can have somewhere decent to live without beggaring themselves and spending all their time away from their home trying to pay for it.
Ender - oh, it's worse than that. Your own city once contained 766,000 people (1931 census). The 2001 census counted 392,000. Now, I haven't looked at figures for the Greater Manchester region, just Manchester City, but I'm guessing nearly halving the population of an urban area in just 70 years means that it's a damn sight emptier than it could be.
You're right about the stagnant supply, but better transport links do make a big difference. Where there's a Metro station within easy walking/bus/cycling distance, the house prices are higher than in comparable areas without. I know that's the same in Manchester. The answer is to extend the network (and put on more frequent/longer trains at peak hours - and stagger peak hours, too) to cover a wider area. Not just in distance, either - part of the problem with the west end of Newcastle is the absence of the Metro: places that are further out are thriving simply because of this.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.
Hang on a second. I don't see how human rights are at stake in this General Election - though it would be good to see politicians emphasising the other side of the equation 'responsibilities' and also having a serious look at how we negotiate the collision of competing rights.
Your remark about Christians voting Conservative is frankly bizarre. The fact is that unless you see the Bible as some sort of party political manifesto you don't have a leg to stand on.
Not the bible but Christ, whose manifesto was the year of Jubilee - good news to the poor etc.
George Lansbury summed it up: Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the "will of God."
Hmmm...I fail to see how allowing a culture of welfare dependency to develop, where individuals are in hock to the almighty state, is doing 'the will of God' or can be remotely Christian.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Your own city once contained 766,000 people (1931 census). The 2001 census counted 392,000. Now, I haven't looked at figures for the Greater Manchester region, just Manchester City, but I'm guessing nearly halving the population of an urban area in just 70 years means that it's a damn sight emptier than it could be.
This is easily accounted for by the long term decline in household size and the increase in prosperity leading to people wanting more space. Without a vastly more massive increase in the number of people living in blocks of flats - which has happened in the city centre to an extent that would have surprised planners from 20 years ago - there's no way we could get anywhere near the population of the 1930s.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
George Lansbury summed it up: Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the "will of God."
That sounds cute until you actually work out what it means on the ground: it means that state licenced suppliers of goods will have a monopoly of the market at state determined prices and the only innovations that are allowed are ones that don't endanger people's jobs. So no motor cars because train drivers will be made redundant. The Soviet Union tried this approach... ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The whole idea of the project is to create a virtuous circle of descending house prices, by building more than the demand. Capitalist economics shouldn't be subject to speculation unless there are cartels (illegal), monopolies (likely to be broken up), or the commodity is scarce (last time I looked, neither bricks nor labour were in short supply).
Houses aren't just a commodity though - they're also an investment. Any project to drastically reduce prices would lead to severe financial hardship and/or bankrupcy for millions of homeowners, just as any project to drastically reduce prices on the stock market would have the same effect.
Though I suppose the ideal solution for socialists would be to have everybody living in council houses, forever in thrall to the almighty state...
.
On the issue of last night's debate, one thing struck me more than anything else. In their final statements, both Cameron and Clegg made positive statements about what they would do to improve the country. Brown, on the other hand, said nothing about what he would do - he just launched an attack on the other two parties. He's completely run out of ideas, hasn't he? The only basis he has left for seeking our vote is that he's bad, but the other guys are worse. Well sorry Gordo, but I'm not buying it and I'll be very surprised if anyone but the hardcore "I'd rather die than vote for anyone but Labour" crowd does.
Very impressed with Clegg and his economic policies though. For the first time in a long time I'm actually having to have a serious think about who to vote for...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Matt Black said: quote:
where individuals are in hock to the almighty state,
Why is it better to be in hock for most of your life to a building society or bank?
I don't really own my house. I own about two bedrooms; the rest of it belongs to the building society, who graciously allow me to use it until such time as I am able to pay off the mortgage.
And it's only an investment if you don't have to live in it, or are willing/able to trade down into a cheaper house when you sell it. Otherwise the 'value' of your house is just a number.
Jane R
[ 30. April 2010, 10:09: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
You ask 'why is it better?' Firstly, because you have to a degree at least a choice of supplier of your finance (less so admittedly than you did this time three years ago) which you certainly don't have with the state. Secondly, presuming that you have a repayment mortgage, the idea is that in due course you will progressively own more than just two bedrooms, indeed ultimately you will own the whole property. Thirdly, everyone has to live somewhere and thus be in hock to either a landlord or a mortgage lender, whatever the degree of state involvement - why does that make state interference in our lives a 'desirable extra'?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Houses aren't just a commodity though - they're also an investment. Any project to drastically reduce prices would lead to severe financial hardship and/or bankrupcy for millions of homeowners, just as any project to drastically reduce prices on the stock market would have the same effect.
Two things here: houses are an investment only because they are artificially scarce. Very few other 'things' increase in value by simply being left alone. A car depreciates. A computer depreciates. Things wear out and we replace them.
Secondly, explain how paying say, Ł180,000 for a house that then falls in value will lead to hardship/bankruptcy. Presumably you could afford an 90% mortgage on the asking price when you bought it. Ten years down the line, when you've lived in your house for ten years and it's now worth Ł120,000, you can still afford it. I don't bitch on about how my car is now worth a fraction of what I paid for it new 4 years ago: I just paid the same amount every month until I'd completed the loan.
Yes, cars are different from houses. That's because people actually build new cars, which drives the price of the old ones down.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
You're assuming everything else remains constant in your model. It doesn't. Suppose interest rates go up or you lose your job so you can't afford to pay the mortgage. So you have to sell up and downsize, except that you can't because your house (in your model) is now worth significantly less than your mortgage.
[ETA - cars also depreciate due to wear and tear and because ultimately they have a limited lifespan, unlike houses.]
[ 30. April 2010, 10:38: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
You're assuming everything else remains constant in your model. It doesn't. Suppose interest rates go up or you lose your job so you can't afford to pay the mortgage. So you have to sell up and downsize, except that you can't because your house (in your model) is now worth significantly less than your mortgage.
If interest rates went up (and they can only go up now) or you lost your job, you'd risk losing the house anyway. I take the point about downsizing - but that's partly, if not mostly, about the size of the loans and the cost of housing being wildly disproportionate to the average income.
The reason we're in the position we are, with houses costing so much, is because of the historical lack of house building. We've made the bubble, and as I keep on pointing out, it's unsustainable. Those of us who see our house as a home, and not as an investment, are unwilling participants in this lunacy.
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The reason we're in the position we are, with houses costing so much, is because of the historical lack of house building. We've made the bubble, and as I keep on pointing out, it's unsustainable. Those of us who see our house as a home, and not as an investment, are unwilling participants in this lunacy.
I have nothing in principle against lowering house prices, as long as I and the millions of other homeowners in the country are compensated for the loss of equity.
When I bought my house it was not with the intention of living here all my life. I'd like to be able to upgrade (including moving to a better school area) once kids start coming along, for one thing.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I have nothing in principle against lowering house prices, as long as I and the millions of other homeowners in the country are compensated for the loss of equity.
Herein lies the problem - and I'm in danger of agreeing with Doc Tor!!
There are two ways for the housing market to work: pre 1970 and post 1970 (approx date..).
In the pre 1970 model prices are stable and the cost of upgrading is sensible.
Post 1970, when house prices started rising rapidly, the model was that you got on the ladder and gained equity that you were then able to trade in for the necessary next upgrade combined with an increase in your mortgage. This is ultimately a bubble, because eventually house prices won't be able to keep rising. However in the process people do achieve their housing needs, a lot of us benefit from inheriting houses that we can sell (thanks Mum!) and the plates keep spinning. And whilst the plates are spinning the only alternatives are to join the manic dance - 'get on the housing ladder' - or rent. Renting does appear to be becoming more realistic as a long term provision of housing need, but it offers a different set of issues in terms of insecurity.
We need to let the air out of the bubble - but the trick would be to achieve zero housing price rises without causing precipitate falls; somehow I doubt this can be achieved... However the approach of substantially increasing council tax, especially at the higher end, may provide a useful way forward, removing capital value from householders and moving it to the government as an income flow. Unfortunately the very visibility of council tax - it's the only tax you are specifically reminded of every year when the bill comes through the door - makes it a hard one to increase, and that combined with the inevitable tales of property rich but cash poor OAPs make it a 'courageous policy', as Sir Humphrey would say.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
Shipmate
# 15431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I have nothing in principle against lowering house prices, as long as I and the millions of other homeowners in the country are compensated for the loss of equity.
What sort of compensation would you be talking about, and who would owe it to you?
--------------------
was phil2357
Posts: 76 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I have nothing in principle against lowering house prices, as long as I and the millions of other homeowners in the country are compensated for the loss of equity.
That's capitalism, baby!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Pottage - you seem to be stuck with the idea that this would be a massive net cost: what it would mean is less profit. I'm willing to take the consequences of the price of my house falling by a quarter or a half or more, if it means families can have somewhere decent to live without beggaring themselves and spending all their time away from their home trying to pay for it.
No, I'm not talking about lost profit for developers or landowners, or people's existing homes declining in value because we generate a massive over-supply so as to shatter the market.
I'm talking about the actual cost of building all the hundreds of thousands of houses you envisage. And the actual cost of acquiring the land, and building the infrastructure to make that possible. And the actual cost, having put tens of thousands of people into a part of the country that was previously empty of finding things for them to do to earn a living there.
That's what makes this so much pie in the sky.
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
No need for y'all to build houses - we have tons of empty foreclosures over here. Just don't buy in Arizona - they might mistake you for an immigrant.
[ETA grammar. And to point out that as bad as things are over there, they could always get worse....]
[ 30. April 2010, 21:10: Message edited by: Choirboy ]
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pottage:
No, I'm not talking about lost profit for developers or landowners, or people's existing homes declining in value because we generate a massive over-supply so as to shatter the market.
Well, neither am I. 'Lost' profit is less than they'd get with the current unsustainable speculation, but still a profit. And I'm suggesting not over-supply, but you know, actually trying to meet demand. Capitalism, and all that jazz.
quote:
I'm talking about the actual cost of building all the hundreds of thousands of houses you envisage. And the actual cost of acquiring the land, and building the infrastructure to make that possible. And the actual cost, having put tens of thousands of people into a part of the country that was previously empty of finding things for them to do to earn a living there.
At the risk of Fisking your post: people do have the money to buy a house, at cost plus a profit for the builder - just not the money to pay the stupid prices we have at the moment because we have a historic shortfall in supply. The actual cost of acquiring the land would be driven down simultaneously - land speculation is one of the driving forces of house speculation. And the infrastructure is just one of those things we're going to have to suck up, because we haven't invested in that, either.
And nowhere did I suggest stranding tens of thousands of people in the Grampians or the Brecon Beacons. Despite Ender's assertions to the contrary, Manchester is not full, and neither are any of the other cities in the UK.
quote:
That's what makes this so much pie in the sky.
Hmmm. Pie.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pottage
Shipmate
# 9529
|
Posted
Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. The price of land, of houses and all of that stuff won't fall because you close your eyes and wish really hard. It will fall when you have created many hundreds of thousands of houses and the vast oversupply of them has pushed down the prices. But how do we get from here to there? Someone has first to buy all the land (at current prices), build all the roads and sewers and dull stuff like that which makes housebuilding work, then put up the houses (not necessarily in the deepest countryside but obviously and necessarily not where there are already communities). Where does the money come from to pay for that?
Posts: 701 | From: middle England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
George Lansbury summed it up: Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith.d betray and make of no effect the "will of God."
That sounds cute until you actually work out what it means on the ground: it means that state licenced suppliers of goods will have a monopoly of the market at state determined prices and the only innovations that are allowed are ones that don't endanger people's jobs.
No, it doesn't mean that. If you really think it does then that is proof that you aren't listening to what is being said but just stuck in the groove of conservative propaganda.
And as for Soviet-style central planning, the only serious party that is pushing for that is the Tories with their absurd pretence that government can decide how many workers are needed for each industry and set a quota for immigrants depending on that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Nice idea Doc Tor; the problem is that the scale of new housing required is in practice inconceivable on this crowded island. The cities such as London and Manchester are pretty much full.
No, they aren't. Nowhere near. Both have fewer inhabitants than they did 80 years ago (as does Glasgow).
quote:
Even the US, with plenty of land, has seen house prices rise recently.
Which is complete proof that the high land prices that are crippling our econmy are NOT due to high population density or lack of usable land.
quote:
The idea of building suburbs further out and therefore requiring more commuting is not attractive.
Which is one of the many reasons why we need to increase population density in cities - as is happening in London, but unfortunately, because the large private developers have a lock-in on new building, not quite fast enough to reduce house prices, which is what is needed.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The reason we're in the position we are, with houses costing so much, is because of the historical lack of house building. We've made the bubble, and as I keep on pointing out, it's unsustainable. Those of us who see our house as a home, and not as an investment, are unwilling participants in this lunacy.
I have nothing in principle against lowering house prices, as long as I and the millions of other homeowners in the country are compensated for the loss of equity.
You didn't read the bit about investments may go down as well as up? And I thought you were a capitalist!
Actually, I wouldn't despair. Land prices have always risen in the long run, even if there are temporary dips. You'll just have to plan your moves for the right moment, and hope the kids come along at a financially propitious time!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
I think what the electorate really wants is a well-hung parliament. Where the politicians have their heads banged together to co-operate to sort out the country's problems.
Whether we'll get that remains to be seen. Interesting times...
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I think what the electorate really wants is a well-hung parliament.
All the polls on this subject say they don't want a hung parliament. Tehy might vote for one but they don't want it. I am a tory supporter this time round and I think I would like a lib lab pact with a wafer thin majority have to bring forward the spending review this Labour government have run from. This will lead to large cut backs and a collapse of the pact and then a healthly conservative majority.
In other wards I think the winner of this election will end up being the loser.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Funny, most Tories I've heard are calling for a "decisive result", "a mandate to govern"; they are willing to accept that it will be really tough on them if they get their wish, but it's an honourable position. You Nightlamp are hoping for a weak ineffective government, doomed to fail just so your party can get into power later.
It sounds like you care more about (delayed) power for your party than the good of the country.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
