Dublin - Significant reduction in rents coming?

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im sure the fact we have a highly dysfunctional property market has a good reason to do with it, with every younger generation requiring ever more of their income to service their property needs, rental and purchasing, means more are finding it difficult to get involved in pension markets earlier in life, and having less to invest in them also when they eventually do, thus leading to crap pension fund yields......

Prices rising when demand increases is not the sign of a highly dysfunctional market. Landlords leaving at a time when rents are at historical highs, and investors not entering the market is though. First time buyers having difficulty buying their home is not a new phenomenon, ask your parents.

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

Prices rising when demand increases is not the sign of a highly dysfunctional market. Landlords leaving at a time when rents are at historical highs, and investors not entering the market is though.

so with ever rising prices, and lower wage inflation, doesnt lead to dysfunctional markets, not just in property?

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so with ever rising prices, and lower wage inflation, doesnt lead to dysfunctional markets, not just in property?

Have you forgotten that less than a decade ago property prices were on the floor? There have always been cycles in market places where prices rise based on demand/supply, then fall due to changes in market/economic conditions. Why should property be automatically affordable? And if it was, would you be ok with prices not falling when market conditions mean it should?

ExMachina1000

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so with ever rising prices, and lower wage inflation, doesnt lead to dysfunctional markets, not just in property?

I could never afford to buy a house in Dalkey.
Does that mean that the Dalkey house market is dysfunctional?

If my pay does not allow me to purchase something I will have to look elsewhere for cheaper. I don't have a right to buy a house in Dalkey.

I'd also like to purchase a Ferrari but I can only afford VW Passat. Is the car market dysfunctional?

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

Have you forgotten that less than a decade ago property prices were on the floor? There have always been cycles in market places where prices rise based on demand/supply, then fall due to changes in market/economic conditions. Why should property be automatically affordable? And if it was, would you be ok with prices not falling when market conditions mean it should?

we really need to get away from all this supply and demand nonsense, its not our reality at all, again, having access to property is in fact a critical human need, even our caveman ancestors knew this, but we have somehow wrapped ourselves up in all this market equilibrium nonsense. by continuing with all this nonsense, its actually costing you, the taxpayer, a bloody fortune with all this dysfunction, and not just financially. so i guess, if you want to keep paying more and more taxes, in order to deal with all this dysfunction, so be it

Wanderer78

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I could never afford to buy a house in Dalkey.
Does that mean that the Dalkey house market is dysfunctional?

If my pay does not allow me to purchase something I will have to look elsewhere for cheaper. I don't have a right to buy a house in Dalkey.

I'd also like to purchase a Ferrari but I can only afford VW Passat. Is the car market dysfunctional?

yea, lets add more fantasy to the story, im sure that ll help!

ExMachina1000

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yea, lets add more fantasy to the story, im sure that ll help!

I'm struggling to understand what exactly you would like to see happen and how it would work.

You are posting heavy on what you perceive are the flaws but light on the alternative. That's all

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we really need to get away from all this supply and demand nonsense, its not our reality at all, again, having access to property is in fact a critical human need, even our caveman ancestors knew this, but we have somehow wrapped ourselves up in all this market equilibrium nonsense. by continuing with all this nonsense, its actually costing you, the taxpayer, a bloody fortune with all this dysfunction, and not just financially. so i guess, if you want to keep paying more and more taxes, in order to deal with all this dysfunction, so be it

Im afraid this is all complete nonsense.

You cannot decide to “get away from all this supply and demand nonsense” in a free market where you rely on consumers and investors. Communism did not work. Having access to property may be a need, but that does not mean you get to rent/buy where you want for the price you want.

Wanderer78

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand what exactly you would like to see happen and how it would work.

You are posting heavy on what you perceive are the flaws but light on the alternative. That's all

its clearly obvious, that our current approach is exposing both tenant and landlord, and the more we play this game, the more exposed both become, we first must accept, theres something deeply going wrong here, but we actually havent accepted this yet, and it seems, our only solutions are, lets keep doing the same thing!

Topgear on Dave

What are your solutions then?

ExMachina1000

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its clearly obvious, that our current approach is exposing both tenant and landlord, and the more we play this game, the more exposed both become, we first must accept, theres something deeply going wrong here, but we actually havent accepted this yet, and it seems, our only solutions are, lets keep doing the same thing!

Yeah you have covered that bit. The alternative is.....

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

Im afraid this is all complete nonsense.

You cannot decide to “get away from all this supply and demand nonsense” in a free market where you rely on consumers and investors. Communism did not work. Having access to property may be a need, but that does not mean you get to rent/buy where you want for the price you want.

oh boring!!! you do realise, our current form of capitalism, is actually only a few decades old, but capitalism itself isnt! some people would want to be reading a bit more, before getting into such debates, ive little or no knowledge in ideologies such as communism, you re just being ignorant now!

Wanderer78

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

What are your solutions then?

we need to increase our stock of public housing and accommodation, and fast, everyones getting screwed

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

oh boring!!! you do realise, our current form of capitalism, is actually only a few decades old, but capitalism itself isnt! some people would want to be reading a bit more, before getting into such debates, ive little or no knowledge in ideologies such as communism, you re just being ignorant now!

You are saying property market economics are only a few decades old? Dear God, wars have been fought over property for millennia.

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

You are saying property market economics are only a few decades old? Dear God, wars have been fought over property for millennia.

you seem to be talking a lot about so called free market economics, with its supplies and demands, it really is only a few decades old, please read up on the history of capitalism

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

you seem to be talking a lot about so called free market economics, with its supplies and demands, it really is only a few decades old, please read up on the history of capitalism

Interesting insight, in 33 AD there was a financial crises in the Roman Empire, Augustus thought that all citizens should have access to land and money, property prices inflated as credit was cheap and easy, sound familiar?

But back to you, your simplistic answer is increase the amount of social housing, is that it? How would you do that, how does that help first time buyers, and what happens if people don’t want to live there?

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

Interesting insight, in 33 AD there was a financial crises in the Roman Empire, Augustus thought that all citizens should have access to land and money, property prices inflated as credit was cheap and easy, sound familiar?

yup, most economic crisis have indeed occurred over credit, strangely enough, credit comes from private sector financial institutions, and you d wonder why we are indeed still experiencing property issues!

once again, theres a difference between social housing and public housing!

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yup, most economic crisis have indeed occurred over credit, strangely enough, credit comes from private sector financial institutions, and you d wonder why we are indeed still experiencing property issues!

Credit has been more difficult to access since the last recession.

Your answer is to heard people into social housing?

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

Credit has been more difficult to access since the last recession.

current central bank rules have only locked a cohort of people out from markets, the market itself has effectively access to an infinite supply of credit, to those that can afford it of course

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

Credit has been more difficult to access since the last recession.

Your answer is to heard people into social housing?

herd people, where what? again, theres a difference between social and public housing!

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

current central bank rules have only locked a cohort of people out from markets, the market itself has effectively access to an infinite supply of credit, to those that can afford it of course

CB rules are there to protect people from borrowing more than they can afford, this is a good policy. People may be locked out of buying where they want, that has always been the way, we cannot all afford to live where we would like to.

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

CB rules are there to protect people from borrowing more than they can afford, this is a good policy. People may be locked out of buying where they want, that has always been the way, we cannot all afford to live where we would like to.

again, central bank rules havent actually changed much, many individuals, couples, businesses, investment funds etc etc, can actually still get access to almost infinite amounts of credit, the rules havent really done much. whos on about living locations?

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

again, central bank rules havent actually changed much, many individuals, couples, businesses, investment funds etc etc, can actually still get access to almost infinite amounts of credit, the rules havent really done much. whos on about living locations?

Property prices are linked to location, a first time buyer may struggle to buy in Dublin, but could afford a home in another location, so location is important when discussing affordability. CB lending rules have done a huge amount, stopping people from borrowing higher multiples of their income protects both the lender and the borrower. Moreover, allowing access to higher multiples may drive prices further upward, not downwards.

Who can get infinite amounts of credit?

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

Property prices are linked to location, a first time buyer may struggle to buy in Dublin, but could afford a home in another location, so location is important when discussing affordability.

Who can get infinite amounts of credit?

its interesting that we want to continually push people out of locations, this hardly leads to complex social issues, that affects things such as 'social cohesion', and these issues hardly cost the tax payer even more, do they?

the more plutocratic elements of society can, many backed by assets such as land and property

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its interesting that we want to continually push people out of locations, this hardly leads to complex social issues, that affects things such as 'social cohesion', and these issues hardly cost the tax payer even more, do they?

the more plutocratic elements of society can, many backed by assets such as land and property

More nonsense.

There has never been a time where every person was able to buy a property in the area they prefer to live.

“Couples” are now the “plutocratic elements of society”?

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

More nonsense.

There has never been a time where every person was able to buy a property in the area they prefer to live.

“Couples” are now the “plutocratic elements of society”?

of course

say wha?

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

of course

say wha?

You said:

Wanderer78 wrote: »

many individuals, couples, businesses, investment funds etc etc, can actually still get access to almost infinite amounts of credit, the rules havent really done much. whos on about living locations?

These are the plutocratic elements of society? Couples.

Who do you know that has access to infinite credit? And do you understand that increasing access to credit might well have the opposite effect to what you want for first time buyers?

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

You said:



These are the plutocratic elements of society? Couples.

Who do you know that has access to infinite credit? And do you understand that increasing access to credit might well have the opposite effect to what you want for first time buyers?

well i guess there would be more wealthier couples than the average, but central bank rules havent done much really, more wealthier investors can easily get access to credit, using their accumulated wealth to do so.

im talking about using the governments ability to borrow, and even using its own abilities to create some of the credit needed, for our infrastructure needs, reducing the need to overly rely on private sector borrowing, which leads to rising private debt, which ultimately caused the previous crash

Dav010

Wanderer78 wrote: »

well i guess there would be more wealthier couples than the average, but central bank rules havent done much really, more wealthier investors can easily get access to credit, using their accumulated wealth to do so.

im talking about using the governments ability to borrow, and even using its own abilities to create some of the credit needed, for our infrastructure needs, reducing the need to overly rely on private sector borrowing, which leads to rising private debt, which ultimately caused the previous crash

This is your answer to the problem? Government borrows or “creates” money to build houses. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

Wanderer78

Dav010 wrote: »

This is your answer to the problem? Government borrows or “creates” money to build houses. What could possibly go wrong with that plan?

banks create credit, the majority of the money supply, and also forms the majority of the money used to build and purchase property, what could possible go wrong!