CVs - again.
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: brand new CB1000R binned
Next: FOAK: eBay quandary
From: M J Carley on 22 Jul 2010 05:36 In the referenced article, SaladDodger <salad.dodger(a)gmail.com> writes: >On 22 July, 09:26, ens...(a)bath.ac.uk (M J Carley) wrote: > >> So bribing politicians is the fault of the politicians but not of the >> people handing over the bribes? > >If the politicians stood by their (socialist, in this case) >"principles", then no bribe would take place. Tony Blair made a point of saying he wasn't a socialist. -- Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash. Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
From: Krusty on 22 Jul 2010 05:44 M J Carley wrote: > In the referenced article, "Krusty" <dontwantany(a)nowhere.invalid> > writes: > > M J Carley wrote: > > >> They can only do that if the houses can be sold. They can't, so we > are >> now bailing out the banks instead. > > > They can. Stick 'em in an auction & they will sell for market value. > > So why is nobody doing it? > > >> Which `speculators'? The buy-to-let crowd can swing as far as I'm > >> concerned > > > I really don't understand that attitude. Rental income has nose > > dived over the last few years as more rental properties become > > available, which obviously helps the poorer end of society who will > > never be able to buy a house. > > Rental income may have nose-dived, but the kind of housing being built > for rent is of little or no use to most families and there are a lot > of empty flats. If you're just talking about new builds, then yeah, maybe. But that's not the 'buy-to-let' crowd, that's the big developers. I think of the BTL crowd more as the ones who buy disgusting old uninhabitable shitters, spend a fortune doing them up, then rent them out. They're invariably suitable family homes, & I can't see a downside to doing that. The blame for a lack of housing overall lies fairly & squarely at the doors of the planning departments & the ever more stringent buildings regs. They've massively pushed up the cost of building a house. The way things are going, the cost of the insulation alone for a new house will be more than the total build cost was 20 years ago. -- Krusty Raptor 1000 MV 750 Senna Tiger 955i Tiger 885 Fantic Hiro 250
From: R C Nesbit on 22 Jul 2010 05:53 Adrian spoke: > And why was that? Because everybody was greedily taking out 110% loans > because they wanted to cash in on the spiralling gravy train that > couldn't possibly ever stop. Nobody bothered to pause and think about the > fact that continuing rises just weren't sustainable, since most people > were already straining every financial tendon to get on the bottom rung. They need to strain to get on the bottom rung why? For somewhere to live? Why not rent? Oh! I know - we were converted from a largely renting demographic to an aspirational home owner demographic through the 1980's. Problem is that people get into the buy to let system[1], and rents rise with housing prices, so renting is no longer an attractive alternative to a mortgage, which *should* over time become a reducing outgoing as a proportion of income - only people want to carry on up the rungs of the ladder. A house is no longer seen as a home in the country, it is seen as an investment. Why? [1]There was a chap on the tellybox recently who, from humble beginnings, ended up with a �5m debt! -- Rob_P UKRM(at)indqualtec.co.uk uppercase(d) BBIWYMC#1 BOG#11? MRO#31 IBCDBBB#1(kotl) FJ1200, CCM130 Benelli Cabriolet (gone) Looks like Rab C Nesbit.
From: Adrian on 22 Jul 2010 06:02 R C Nesbit <spam(a)ukrm.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > Adrian spoke: >> And why was that? Because everybody was greedily taking out 110% loans >> because they wanted to cash in on the spiralling gravy train that >> couldn't possibly ever stop. Nobody bothered to pause and think about >> the fact that continuing rises just weren't sustainable, since most >> people were already straining every financial tendon to get on the >> bottom rung. > > They need to strain to get on the bottom rung why? Maybe they didn't NEED to, but wanted to? > For somewhere to live? > > Why not rent? > > Oh! I know - we were converted from a largely renting demographic to an > aspirational home owner demographic through the 1980's. > > Problem is that people get into the buy to let system[1], and rents rise > with housing prices, so renting is no longer an attractive alternative > to a mortgage, which *should* over time become a reducing outgoing as a > proportion of income - only people want to carry on up the rungs of the > ladder. Except, of course, you seem to miss the rather fundamental flaw in your argument - if nobody's renting, buy-to-let becomes unviable. > A house is no longer seen as a home in the country, it is seen as an > investment. > > Why? Because prices have been increasing rapidly for years, and the "stupid proles" didn't see that that was unsustainable.
From: M J Carley on 22 Jul 2010 06:04
In the referenced article, "CT" <me(a)christrollen.co.uk> writes: >Krusty wrote: >> The blame for a lack of housing overall lies fairly & squarely at the >> doors of the planning departments & the ever more stringent buildings >> regs. They've massively pushed up the cost of building a house. >Not just that. Probably not that at all. >A couple of years ago, we looked at a new build just outside Bracknell. >And then we drove half an hour down the M4 to Thatcham, and saw exactly >the same house for �100k cheaper. >Now I am sure that the land in Bracknell probably cost a bit more, >but to the tune of �100k a plot? Market forces must count for a fair >chunk. So it's not planning departments pushing up prices, it's property developers pushing up prices because they can get away with it. -- Si deve tornare alle basi: Marx ed i Clash. Michael Carley: http://people.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/ |