Hmmmm, foxy!
So you say, Cherts. So you say.
Howās your investigation into Khasoggi going? To me, thatās the best example of you seeing all the evidence and deciding it isnāt there.
Your refusal to acknowledge anything written here, even cast your own dunderheadedness with someone elseās lack of comprehension, is mere chicken feed by comparison compared to that continuing hole in your credibility.
"Ooh! ooh! perhaps the Saudis never did it"
Chertsey of Arabia, in the face of all available evidence.
No-one else seems to have a problem with my definition of supply and demand, even after I took it to the patronising, child like levels that even you might understand. That failed.
Iāve got other ideas, fortunately.
Deflecting again I seeā¦
Come on, and try and use all that shit you read on Wikipedia, and see if you can apply it to real world situations. Youāve already looked like a fraud above, and itās been very funny to see you try to weasel out of answering any economics questions asked of you, but do yourself a favour and actually try to apply it, or I will continue calling you out as the fraud you seem to be.
In relation to Khasoggi, why donāt you ask me the question on that thread, instead of trying to derail this one.
Yes, thatās what people come here for, Chertsey. Your opinions on me.
It came as a real surprise to me, I can tell you.
I did ask you the question on the other thread, btw. It has been left unloved and unanswered, but then I did link you and refer to you as a ābig wrong bastardā 
Iām just asking you to apply your knowledge of Supply and Demand to the situations above. Surely you can do that? No idea why you would be dodging that.
Whilst there is certainly a need for house prices to reflect income and be affordable for more folks, this should be delivered through a more normalised growth rateā¦ not by major deflation. why? because once again its those worst off who have the biggest problems when stuck in negative equityā¦ the better off usually have other reserves to counter this should needs arise. A large proportion of the country across ALL income levels will be left in negative equity with major fallsā¦ only those with relatively small or zero mortgages remain less effectedā¦
ā¦ once again you only react to the headline and ignore the reality - negative equity means major issues for the economy, folks dont spend spendā¦a nervousness in the financial sectors in such circumstances and we end up back in 2006ā¦ local economy is impacted as consumers spend less resulting in challenges for local businesses many themselves then stuck in commercial rental contracts that become out of line with their revenue streamsā¦
There are only so many facepalms that can be posted about your āstudentā politics/economics - headlines that are āright onā, reality is ignored. You seem to accept that poor people suffering is OK/collateral damage if it means the rich get fucked a bit - just like the sneering āRicāā¦ Its why I cant take you seriously really, as so many contradictions, like a confused kid, trying too hardā¦
Q: How does someone find themselves in negative equity?
A: Their house was never worth as much as the money they loaned to pay for it.
Address the cause, not the symptoms.
- A house is ONLY ever worth what someone is prepared to pay for it and whether there is sufficient confidence by the lender that the loan will be repaid/covered in the even of default. Sadly in this country we dont have regulated rentals that in many European countries see folks happily rent for life, at rates that are affordable and relative to the standards - controlled and enforced by local government. In this country we do not have that and so folks have been forced to take on bigger loans if they want somewhere decent to liveā¦ yes it needs sorting, but not by making it worse for the most vulnerable. Iāll repeat it again, your solutions are all good and socialist superficially, but are naive given that that the less well off will suffer the mostā¦ are you happy with that?
Who is your āless well offā demographic?
Iād say they are people paying exorbitant rents right now, not the sort of people that can over-burden themselves with mortgage debt to have āsomewhere decent to liveā.
Strangely, my sympathy for the sort of tossers that leverage themselves up to the hilt, as not to be around poor people, to be considerably less than those poor people theyāre trying to escape.
ā¦ Jeez, so you are accusing all this e who have a mortgage of trying to get away from poor people? Do you have a mortgage?
Nope, I quite specifically said those that had over-burdened themselves.
Twice.
Is that everyone with a mortgage, is it?
L2R.
Papā¦ many first time buyers not looking for luxury, just a place to liveā¦ you know start a family maybe, just a small place they call their ownā¦ have 90-95% LTV mortgagesā¦this is not āextending yourself to get away from poor peopleā - this is just ordinary life for many younger folks - who will suffer most if there is a major fall, but fuck em hey, they are not you, and they deserve it for having the audacity to want to own their own homeā¦
This is the problem with ideology and political principles that were invented in a time of in effect slave wages for the poor, workhouses and dickensian nightmaresā¦ In theory, they are wonderful humanistic idealsā¦ in reality, they are principles the poor cant afford in a the modern worldā¦ those trying to apply them in 2018 just end up pissing most on the very folks they think they are representingā¦ Its why the tories are pissing themselves.
The sensible way to avoid 100,000s of poor being fucked but at the same time beginning a process of making home ownership more affordable is really VERY simpleā¦ and its not doing all you can to drive prices down. Its:
-
Rent controls - ceiling rents dependent on quality of property and location (NOT just local demand) - capped at realistic rates with occupancy limited based on normal standards
-
Gradual introduction of new mortgage rules that limit lending to income and affordabilityā¦ REALISTIC levels of borrowing
-
Build more fucking homes, both public and private sector
Your, lets fuck with those already in the system is as ridiculous as it is naiveā¦ and it aint about 'sympathy, its about the reality that such deflation has on the Whole economy and when the economy gets fucked, the poor get fucked mostā¦ You seem happy with that as long as it means you are true to your āprinciplesāā¦ that would be fucking hilarious, if it were not so tragically typical of what the left has become. We need a pragmatic opposition/government that has real compassion yes, but recognises that outdated doctrine is self defeating and will lead to a very short term in officeā¦
The thing is, I actually have no problem with @pap using his GCSE business studies to try to explain economics, and I also donāt mind him regurgitating the theory onto this page. The issue I have is his inability to apply it in a real world situation, and being able to explain how it effects the market. If he put any of his answers forward in my economics major, heād end up failing as heās not demonstrating an understanding of what heās saying. Itās probably why he didnāt end up doing a degree of that difficulty.
I actually agree with all three of your listed recommendations.
Have you thought them through?
All three will bring the cost of houses down in isolation. Together, theyāre a veritable negative equity bomb for anyone in the system.
-
Makes buy to let less attractive. The demand for those sorts of properties will drop further than it already has.
-
Will reduce the number of borrowers on the market. Given that borrowers pretty much equal buyers (very few can just waltz in and buy outright), youāre now constricting demand from the would-be private homeowner.
So thatās your first two recommendations both resulting in reducing demand for a commodity. Dovetailing that, we have:-
- Create more supply of the commodity weāre lacking. Lots more, in both the public and private sectors.
Every one of your recommendations is laudable in isolation, and would be dynamite in cahoots. I second all of them.
The problem is theyāll cause house prices to dive. Your plans do little for those that you say youāre concerned for, apart from 3), where at least they might get a council house. You need more recommendations to make this right.
-
All houses to be revalued along lines not entirely tied to how much banks will lend.
-
Any mortgage holder in negative equity has their IOU reduced retrospectively
-
All compensation to be funded by all banks that knowingly underwrote self-certifying mortgages, has had a bail out from the tax payer or had any involvement in the sub prime scandal.
I think thatāll do nicely.
Sotonians. Come for the unrequited promise of football chat.
Stay for the gruesome spectacle of a project manager intellectually brow-beating the one programmer he knows that he doesnāt have to make tea for.
ā¦ what part of āgradualā did you not get? It cant happen over night and nor should it, but can be relatively adjusted to suit so that the growth rate in value becomes aligned to inflation onlyā¦ its not a difficult thing to do if there was a willā¦
Gradual is not going to help actual people suffering today. For that, we need radical, and what radical amounts to in this day and age is switching back to a mixed economy where private interests arenāt trusted to run essential services.
Youāre too much in deference to what @WorzelScummage refers to as the real world, and by that, he means this century old system in which countries get to create money out of nothing.
This system, now rapidly evolved, basically gets to control things like house prices through some compounding economic facts. First, prices will rise to what the market will bear, and when you have banks lending hundreds of thousands to chancers on a self-cert, that market will bear a lot. Second, and I reiterate, this money is created from nothing, with banks the key source of its creation.
They spent years creating increasing sums of money, with fewer controls over where it went, or if it would be repaid, packaging the lot into opaque financial vehicles which eventually came crashing down in 2008, which the public has been footing the bill for ever since.
I think these institutions need to be addressed immediately, not gradually. Itās a crime that is hasnāt happened as of yet.
You have about as much idea of my standing as you do about economicsā¦
Not that Iām particularly interested, but how did all this mortgage bollocks end up on the brexit thread?
Good point about negative equity MOT.
Equally Paponomics still make sense.
The one thing that could fvck you all up (like our football team) is confidence.
Down here a series of structural changes have impacted on consumer confidence and the marginal propensity to consume. Experienced people are leaving in huge numbers and being replaced with younger cheaper labour.
Eventually they will be able to increase consumption and demand will recover. Problem is you canāt do that in UK.
The economy should improve once it adjusts to new circumstances, but we read daily that industry lacks confidence to invest.
IF that spreads to consumers the transition to full Brexit could be very painful.
In other words, Pap & MOT are both right, it could just be a difference in timing until it is proven.
Lack of confidence. Debt and negative equity will be really tough to get out of after quantative easing wrecked the National debt to bail out the banks and destroyed the support structures.