ianrobo1

why is the stock market falling even further, things happening is a surprise is it ?

No Will be a through a share option scheme so it seems, just need to put up their balance sheet a bit more but we have heard that befre but HSBC looks fine and before we get stuck on me using 'scum' then I apologise for using a emotice term and would temper it with saying some private landlords are scum.

but snowy the 'circumstances' are mortgages and a free market, eys we both disagree with that but it seems the majority want that pretty soon the pain will really show, the first large scale redunacies were about 4 months ago and pretty soon after 6 months we will see house repossesions ad then it will start just wished we could see a government scheme where they take over the mortgage and take ownership of the houses, if it is clear the occupier can not even pay a small sum the government buys the house for rent

Shit, Ian, sometimes you do post some of the most frightfully incendiary stuff. Some private landlords are, indeed, not the most caring, socially-responsible people in the world. Some are as nice as pie. Perhaps the ones. whose shenanigans your other half relays to you. are not very pleasant (that would be quite logical if she is dealing with people made homeless by landlords) but to categorise them all as 'scum' - blimey. :shock: yes it is me exaggarting to make a point because I know three peopel who rent one home out and are perfectly fine but seriously you should check out the private landlords my Mrs's has to deal with some of the behavouir is sickening and scum for them would be right but as usual lets debate one emotive than the actual point and the table Gringo does show a correlation, Hugary is reckoned to be very close to bankruptcy, Ireland as CV will confirm is in depserate straits and we know about the UK and US just can someone tell me why rising house prices under any circumstances is a good thing because when they crash everyone gets burned our whole economies have been based on the housing market and when the great council house sell off happened it was sealed as the way to go before thatch robbed the country of it's assets anyone know what the figures were the and how many got sold off ?

so another economy in the deep shit with high owner occupation get the picture ?

interesting table because the highest three owner occupiers are the three countries in europe reckoned to be int he worse trouble seems to me the ideal split is around 50/50 owner and rental and yes Gringo it was an emotive term because I have never rented thus my only experience is those my Mrs's comes into contact with, those landlords who bully and chuck people out in contravention of the law now I am surprised at the low number of social housing for GErmany especially how much in the east would have been state owned just 20 years ago, Did germany 'sell' these off to private and what do housing associations class as ? a figure I would like to see if available is the value of renting in the two secotrs against cost of mortgages, so for example for me Renting should be lower than mortgage by a significant amount is this the case in the rest of europe ?

either someone has to rent out houses, or everyone owns their own house. government is inefficient at running a scheme like this, therefore only the private sector is left. and the private sector will only do it for a profit. the trouble in this country is that there is not enough house-building, therefore the housing market is undersupplied by about 3 million houses. why is the government ineffiecent at it ? since the council housing was sold off at massive idscounts what councils got left with was shit, before hand people had a security of tenure and some pretty decent stiock in places and no so good in other how is a private landlord charging the same as a mortgage more 'efficent' ? and I would argue the big problem with house supply is a lot more people live on their own or split from partners, this obviously increased the demand and also led to the surge in flats in towns, the market that has sufferred the most as these single people took on single mortgages with very high multiples

I was accusing you of incoherence, not inconsistency. As opposed to all those private landlords who are in it out of the goodness of their own heart? Any examples of countries where there is a low perecentage of private ownership and which are booming? less shit than the likes of us and the US. For example don;t france and GErmany have an higher level of public rent, pretty sure it is much higher and they 'seem' less in the shit but all how you declare that point is Gringo, do you believe selling housing and renting it for profit is correct, Warren Buffet believes not

It is already. so I sell my house now, roughly 60k more than what I paid for it 10 years ago I would get captial gains tax against me ? Yes but you couldn't buy one to live in for the same price you paid ten years ago either exactly my point bicks, the whole thing is false, some people ineviatbly will gain, those who inherit ro buy at the very low levels and rent for example for most house price rises is a false god, it gives the impression of being well off when it makes no difference and in fact led to what we have now, would you say that ? Say as you suggested we should have had more regulation(note Richard does not answer that point) then maybe that would have calmed the house market down but did people want that, course not, the false god made them feel well off

It is already. so I sell my house now, roughly 60k more than what I paid for it 10 years ago I would get captial gains tax against me ?

So do the Labour Party Ian. unless you are communist then all main poltical parties do does not mean it is right

So where are all the people going to live in ianrobo world - your two conflicting policy aims leave most of the people with no houses. It makes no sense. Or are you going to nationalise the housing stock, taking all the ex council houses back into public ownership? Or going to finance a govt backed massive house building project? Not really thought through properly is it. yes I would do all that as said before in this or another thread spend money building, spend money now with house prices low on buying up empty property fully support the lib dems on this plan it is noticable those countries in shit are those with an high number of private ownership, be it rent or owned. You would not believe the amount of landlords defaulting on mortgages and chucking peopel out, it is madness and long term costs the state more. for every people homeless it costs a basic 2k to house or find them somewhere have I not been consisent on that Gringo ? have long term aim of a bigger % of housing being social housing and reduce the number of private landlords who are only in it for profit, believe Clarry can explain more

How would you Police that? What does it mean in practice? Say someone bought a house for 75K and then got a family, or extended their family and looked to move to a bigger home. In the time between buying it and getting to the stage where they wanted to move the house is now worth 300K, but the house they want is only costing 200K. Does that count as "profit" ? tax it ... simple but I guess the campaigns to remove inheritance tax just helped to clarify for peopel that property is about money and not about somewhere to live in my lifetime two out of the three recessions was caused by the over inflated housing market, but this time the banks gambled on prices never going down but I guess Richard you support the free market don't you so you will fail once again to answer whether you allow a market to collapse as they will and decide whether to support it or not ?

So on the one hand you want to reduce the number of people owning homes or pursuing home ownership. On the other hand you want to ban profit making from property, so no private landlords. Treehouse? Poorhouse? Where will we all live? Private landlords are scum, I knwo some on here may do it, but some of the stuff my Mrs's has to deal with beggars belief Keep saying it but when history reflects on thie last years the selling off of the council housing stock at very very very low price will be seen as a 'crime'

i think this comment is utterly irrelevant to whatever the current situation is. You could have asked buffet this 10 or 20 years ago an dhe'd have given you the same response. and he would have been right then too I would go so as to say that property should be banned for using as a profit maker for anyone. It never makes sense when your material wealth goes up, not because of anything you have done but just because the market deemed it so. then of course the banks based their business on the value of loans which was/is a false position as we can now see

we haven't lost two in a row !!

when an arch captialist - Warren Buffet, says this you knwo the situation is **** up incidentially I agree 100% with this

With the interest rate weapon being seemingly impotent, there is very little alternative and it's an idea that has been floated for nearly a year but has scared off the politicos. What we don't need is for this to be used to pump money into those banks that so despise labour. The money needs to be pumped into the economy not used to shore up capitalisation levels. I'm happy to be corrected mate but isn't buying up bad government debt essentially the same as what I've bolded above? Further to that will printing money not also mean another fall in the value of Sterling? not when the US and eurozone have to do it ... the US have really tried not to do it but that time is close and the eurozone is in a mess as well whoever goes first the rest will follow as night follows day the governments have just the two other options as far as I can see and that is to let banks collapse and see what the hell happens or borrow even more to shore them up thus having the same effect anyway.

I think a lot of that is the fact that the population has been told that they want it by their supposed 'biggers and betters'. Interesting review on R4 this morning about ineqality within society and how inequality tends to see even the poorest increase their consumption levels relative to their wealth, ie the more inequality that exists the more people try to counter their position at the bottom of the scale by trying to be more like those higher up the ladder. yep thats it some call it social mobility some call it aspirational some may call it short sighted I also heard something on R5 this morning that stated that a large number of those in toruble are in fact the 'middle class' and is this not because they also 'aspired' to move up the next level ? It is inevitable if you pursue free market polcies since the war and lately since the 80's

you may not but millions of others did, Asda/Primark etc. thus grew on the back of this, heck I am just to blame, we spent £10 on 4 t-shirts for Amy at the weekend the population wants it and the polticans of any hue can not back against it because simply they would never get elected in as we have discussed ad nauseum snowy we have few other options

Seriously, I am so glad you're not chancellor with opinions of that nature. go on there care to give a counter argument and state why when it is agreed the laissez faire touch of the FSA caused these problems that we should not have tighter regulation (I won;t hold my breath for a rational debate of this)

Snowy, the thing is the argument for losing business is used in every attempt to tighten up regulation Min wage - would lose jobs to toher cheaper countries tighter regs - lose business to NYSE it is the typical free market argument as you know,for the free market to work it needs somehwere to be cheaper and less deregulated yes we all wanted that because we wanted £2 pairs of kids jeans from ASda, eh guess what they are produced in far east sweat shops we wnate all the benefits of a free market and not the negative, take house prices for example now at least we have a chance to redress that, but we won;t because as soon as a new reg is published we will hear screams from business on how it will cost them money

yes Bicks, this is the key but it was the finacial service industry and the world markets wanted. In order to keep trade we effectivtly had to deregulate or the money would have gone to the NYSE which was also the same. So as I keep saying ALL are to BLAME because WE (in a general sense) wanted 'free trade' and liberalisation, back then there were only a few calls for heavier regulation and these were sirens in the wind. Do you think the Tories would have done any different ? nope or the lib dems ? nope the free marker demanded it, you know the economy is run liek that but it failed, 'laissez faire' would never work and even the Tories have now stopped called for 'less red tape' you may have noticed. Free market will never be successful if you just let it get on with it. hopefully this may change but is unlikely to when the head of Lansdowne (major hedge fund and thus beneficary of this) is a major contributer to the Tories and part of Camerons 100 lunch club. and unfortnatuly it appears the Tories may win the next election. So to the Tory supporters on here (not you Bicks !!) do you support the calls for tougher regulation and red tape for the city and free market ?

HSBC are now having to raise £12bn but surely that is normal in a recession are they looking for the government to bail them out too ??

How could they have not known about 10bn? as I said in my last post easier to ignore it the government will bail you out !