patrick.net

Home ownership rates in UK slip to 25 year low
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/02/27/352491/uk-home-ownership-rates-at-record-low/

It's all Obama's fault!!!

The UK is in a very bad way, socially and economically. There's a series of articles in The Economist from several months ago (bought the mag in an airport, was engrossing reading for a five hour flight) discussing the myriad of problems they're facing and the fact that so many Brits have simply said fuck it, we're not gonna be visitors in our own land. They say it's getting scary there.

zzyzzx says

It's all Obama's fault!!!

He's English? I thought he was Kenyan.
All foreigners look alike.

but if 99 percent of the people can't afford to buy a house, what will be making their price so high and unaffordable? a house is what someone can afford to pay, isn't it.

casandra says

but if 99 percent of the people can't afford to buy a house, what will be making their price so high and unaffordable? a house is what someone can afford to pay, isn't it.

Yep a bit of hyperbole. Home prices do have limits based on what people can afford -there is a limit even with borrowing. (for stocks there is no limit to how high they can go)

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

casandra says

but if 99 percent of the people can't afford to buy a house, what will be making their price so high and unaffordable? a house is what someone can afford to pay, isn't it.

For most asset classes: sure.

Real estate is different, because it has inherent value, independent of what people can or are willing to pay. Put another way, the supply and demand curves need not intersect, so that real estate need not require a buyer at a given price to have that actual value.

The value of real estate is emotional and spiritual - it is the only source of happiness, and the only object of toil and achievement. Only the best people should own it, anyway. Don't forget that only a few hundred years ago, only the upper classes could own real estate in Europe, which makes sense when you consider that over 95% of us are not genetically fit to possess it.

At some point, real estate will no longer change hands, at least for any cash, and will only be exchanged among a few families, at multi-generational intervals.

This is identical to feudalism, which is the best economic system yet devised, because it rewards those whose parents, or perhaps great-great-great-great grandparents, worked the hardest.

zzyzzx says

It's all Obama's fault!!!

Like we didn't know that. Even though it's in the UK, yup, it's Obama's fault. It's also his fault (seriously) that he'd LOVE to pattern us after the UK; I'm not crazy about Obama's vision of/for America. If I thought UK was a wonderful place ... I'd have moved there (so I could stand in line for a doctor, among other things).

smaulgld says

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

Because their other choice would be ?????

mmmarvel says

smaulgld says

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

Because their other choice would be ?????

They would have to rent- as they could scrape the rent money together but never have enough for a down payment

smaulgld says

mmmarvel says

smaulgld says

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

Because their other choice would be ?????

They would have to rent- as they could scrape the rent money together but never have enough for a down payment

But at some point the ROI for landlords goes to zero. Like in LA and San Jose areas today, for example. Florida, Las Vegas, etc, are now the big "winners" in terms of investors picking up homes (and propping up prices). There is no market for that where I live anymore. And once the investors pick up what is left in FL, LV, etc, those markets will be tapped out. All investors can do is keep prices just barely out of reach so that people are forced to rent. But this is America: people will find a way. In the 90s the way was dual income. In the 00s the way was risky mortgages. Either we will find a way to pay more for houses, or we will squeeze more family members into small houses (kind of like humans have done for thousands of years) to keep rent costs down.

Based on what I see around me in my city, the market is dried up. Nobody is selling the low end ($400-500k) homes anymore. There are a lot of sales in the $700-900k range, but those are beginning to sit on the market. Investors sure as hell don't want them, because they rent for less than $3k.

I think this cycle's glut of investors was in it for a quick buck. Pay cash from stocks, rake in the rent money, then flip in a few years when the home is worth 3x more. In 10 years when they have to start making serious repairs on the homes, they will be out.

The greatest thing about this investor-led boom in home prices is this: the banks are not on the hook. There is no MBS-purchasing bullshit that will save anyone's ass. No bailouts. Banks have already restructured failed mortgages from last decade. If the RE market tanks, there is no rescue package needed. What will the fed do? Hand out cash wads to Blackstone? Oh wait, shit...this is America...

casandra says

but if 99 percent of the people can't afford to buy a house, what will be making their price so high and unaffordable? a house is what someone can afford to pay, isn't it.

I'll tell why it's a myth that 99% can't afford to buy.
Fact: Every home on the market is affordable to someone or other.

Strategist says

casandra says

but if 99 percent of the people can't afford to buy a house, what will be making their price so high and unaffordable? a house is what someone can afford to pay, isn't it.

I'll tell why it's a myth that 99% can't afford to buy.

Fact: Every home on the market is affordable to someone or other.

Fact 2: There is a home for sale at every budget.
It might be a cheaper area, smaller home, or older home, but it's there.

Strategist says

Fact 2: There is a home for sale at every budget.

It might be a cheaper area, smaller home, or older home, but it's there.

Thanks NAR spokesman

smaulgld says

Strategist says

Fact 2: There is a home for sale at every budget.

It might be a cheaper area, smaller home, or older home, but it's there.

Thanks NAR spokesman

They should pay me. Those cheap bastards won't.

mmmarvel says

smaulgld says

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

Because their other choice would be ?????

Hello mom, dad, I'm back.

Strategist says

They should pay me. Those cheap bastards won't.

That's because the RE market is so bright that realtors are flush with cash.

Strategist says

mmmarvel says

smaulgld says

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

Because their other choice would be ?????

Hello mom, dad, I'm back.

Or join the military. At least that's one employer who supplies housing.

New Renter says

Strategist says

mmmarvel says

smaulgld says

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

Because their other choice would be ?????

Hello mom, dad, I'm back.

Or join the military. At least that's one employer who supplies housing.

Jail provides a roof too

smaulgld says

New Renter says

Strategist says

mmmarvel says

smaulgld says

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

Because their other choice would be ?????

Hello mom, dad, I'm back.

Or join the military. At least that's one employer who supplies housing.

Jail provides a roof too

Helps explain criminal recidivism.

smaulgld says

New Renter says

Strategist says

mmmarvel says

smaulgld says

But if prices become too expense for people to buy they will rent

Because their other choice would be ?????

Hello mom, dad, I'm back.

Or join the military. At least that's one employer who supplies housing.

Jail provides a roof too

In a $100 million resort.

New Renter says

Jail provides a roof too

Helps explain criminal recidivism.

Many convicts have admitted as such

If you can't spell "won't", you don't deserve the fuckin thing...

smaulgld says

We wont own our own homes, we wont be able to afford it.

SoftShell says

If you can't spell "won't", you don't deserve the fuckin thing...

smaulgld says

We wont own our own homes, we wont be able to afford it.

Wot?

jazz music says

smaulgld says

Jail provides a roof too

Don't forget the for-profit prisons would just love to see all of us come their way so much that they lobby for it to happen.

Those for-profit prisons channel campaign contributions to Republican politicians, and are therefore efficient and a success of privatization.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

jazz music says

smaulgld says

Jail provides a roof too

Don't forget the for-profit prisons would just love to see all of us come their way so much that they lobby for it to happen.

Those for-profit prisons channel campaign contributions to Republican politicians, and are therefore efficient and a success of privatization.

They are a crime

Corporations and government working together

jazz music says

smaulgld says

Jail provides a roof too

Don't forget the for-profit prisons would just love to see all of us come their way so much that they lobby for it to happen.

Are you saying they lobby to get innocent people convicted, so they can make more money? That what it sounds like.
The real truth is they lobby to get prisoners from government prisons into their own. When governments run things you have inefficiencies, bureaucracy, cost overruns and gridlock. When private businesses do the same thing you get the exact opposite. Do you know inefficient California spends $50,000 per prisoner every year, while Texas spends just $17,000. Private prisons would save us even more money.
Your allegations are simply absurd.
@jazz music

Strategist says

Are you saying they lobby to get innocent people convicted, so they can make more money? That what it sounds like.

Here you go!

http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/22/4-industries-getting-rich-off-the-drug-w/2

Nowhere is the private prison industry’s reliance on the drug war more apparent than in CCA’s 2010 report to shareholders. “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws,” reads the report CCA filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.

“For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Legislation has been proposed in numerous jurisdictions that could lower minimum sentences for some non-violent crimes and make more inmates eligible for early release based on good behavior. Also, sentencing alternatives under consideration could put some offenders on probation with electronic monitoring who would otherwise be incarcerated. Similarly, reductions in crime rates or resources dedicated to prevent and enforce crime could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities.”

According to a report from the Justice Policy Institute, lobbyists for the private prison industry have pushed “three strikes” and “truth-in-sentencing” laws across the country. Both types of laws adversely affect drug users.

And:

Between 2003 and 2010, Corrections Corporation of America spent over $14 million on lobbying in over 30 states. For years, the company has also worked with ALEC, the conservative advocacy group, which backed legislation for harsh sentencing and mandatory minimums at the state level. As the Washington Monthly recently noted, ALEC has “probably contributed more to the spread of mandatory minimum legislation in the states than just about any other single source.” (And CCA is not alone; the top three prison companies have spent $45 million on campaign donations and lobbying over the past decade.) ALEC has recently softened its support on mandatory minimums somewhat.

Strategist says

Private prisons would save us even more money.

Focusing on throwing only real criminals in jail would reduce the prison rolls and save us money and make us safer

Iosef V HydroCabron says

“The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws,” reads the report CCA filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.

That statement is given under oath in the filing so you know that is a legitimate risk factor. The "private" (government sponsored) prison facility wants to make sure that "relaxation" is reversed and you can bet they are lobbying to make it so.

There is clearly a difference in the competence of the private sector and government in their abilities produce goods and services. (compare USPS to FED Ex or UPS)

Privitization of prisons, however, is not turning over government run prisons to the private sector its both of them working together to produce unfair, costly results that benefit only the prison facility and the politician who strikes the deal and takes their campaign contributions.

smaulgld says

There is clearly a difference in the competence of the private sector and government in their abilities produce goods and services. (compare USPS to FED Ex or UPS)

I don't buy this example as anything more than conservative dogma.

The USPS delivers to every address in the United States, including back-mof-beyond rural locations which cannot possibly be profitable, 6 days a week, for miniscule prices: first class is less than 50 cents, and much commercial mail is far cheaper.

FedEx and UPS perform a more limited set of services and charge far more for them.

It's not certain that the USPS is inefficient when compared to private carriers.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

It's not certain that the USPS is inefficient when compared to private carriers.

Not even close- the government no way can compete (nor should it in some cases) with private industry.

The post office is a massive mess and operates at a big loss. But as you point out it provides more services and profit is not its main motive.

smaulgld says

Not even close- the government no way can compete (nor should it in some cases) with private industry.

You do know that repeating something several times doesn't really make it more persuasive.

1. Few private pension or investment funds have ever operated with as low an overhead as Social Security (under 1 percent), particularly considering the massive numbers of transactions it handles.

2. When Thatcher privatized Britain's shitty rail system, prices rose and service got worse.

3. Comcast.

On the other hand, there are many examples of private industry being more efficient than the government.

Just as the Fed is not the main problem in the United States today, there are other things which seem more complicated to me than they do to conservatives.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

1. Few private pension or investment funds have ever operated with as low an overhead as Social Security (

Few, I mean NO private pension or investment fund can loan out 100% of their assets to fund the warfare/welfare state and/or any other government expenditure and claim they are solvent.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

2. When Thatcher privatized Britain's shitty rail system, prices rose and service got worse.

3. Comcast.

those are examples like the prison system where the government has a monopoly to hand out and hands it to a favored crony which usually leads to no better or worse service.
That's not private enterprise

Iosef V HydroCabron says

Just as the Fed is not the main problem in the United States today, there are other things which seem more complicated to me than they do to conservatives.

that is true, there are many problems but the ability to analyze them is not the preserve of one political ideology or individual

Not to mention marketing cost would be a lot lower if a private pension fund could count on mandatory subscription and have the enforcement cost downloaded to the IRS.

smaulgld says

those are examples like the prison system where the government has a monopoly to hand out and hands it to a favored crony which usually leads to no better or worse service.

Sounds like a good argument against privatization.

Reality says

Not to mention marketing cost would be a lot lower if a private pension fund could count on mandatory subscription and have the enforcement cost downloaded to the IRS.

Mandatory to the point if you don't pay your social security tax you get thrown into one of those "privatized prisons"

Iosef V HydroCabron says

smaulgld says

those are examples like the prison system where the government has a monopoly to hand out and hands it to a favored crony which usually leads to no better or worse service.

Sounds like a good argument against privatization.

It is for areas where the government already has a monopoly and then merely turns over that monopoly to a private party.

An unearned monopoly no matter who runs it is inefficient and does not serve consumers well.

In fact in a democracy a government monopoly is better in some ways than a government sponsored monopoly as the voters MAY be able to get their representatives to fix any issues whereas a private government sponsored monopoly will do nothing to fix it with impunity.