Kristopherus wrote: » How could anyone borrow if the banks were gone ?????
realitykeeper wrote: » Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply. Furthermore it would have enabled new developers (who had not over borrowed) to start building new housing in a normal functioning housing market. What we are seeing now is just the beginning of the pain the country postponed by bailing out the banks. The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007. The rent increases also helped those who borrowed in the naughties to keep their second and third homes to the detriment to the young people who were completely blameless. Had the banks not been bailed out, some of those homeless people in Apollo House could be property owners now.
realitykeeper wrote: » Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.Furthermore it would have enabled new developers (who had not over borrowed) to start building new housing in a normal functioning housing market. What we are seeing now is just the beginning of the pain the country postponed by bailing out the banks. The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007. The rent increases also helped those who borrowed in the naughties to keep their second and third homes to the detriment to the young people who were completely blameless. Had the banks not been bailed out, some of those homeless people in Apollo House could be property owners now.
Rightwing wrote: » It wouldn't. Builders are finding it difficult to make a return on investment as it is. Government needs to greatly reduce levies so that builders can build affordable homes and still make a profit. The cost of a build remains the problem. There is truth in some of your other points. But who are these homeless Apollo house residents, have they jobs? Are they alcoholics/drug addicts? I find it hard to see how someone can become homeless unless they are more or less a complete loser with no prospects, and then such individuals wouldn't be in a position to get a house if it was selling for €10K.
Rightwing wrote: » I find it hard to see how someone can become homeless unless they are more or less a complete loser with no prospects...
oscarBravo wrote: » I'm guessing that's because you haven't bothered to look into the issue. If you're in a low-paid job where you're barely covering your rent as it is, your landlord increases your rent by 50%, and you can't find anything else to rent in a market where demand vastly outstrips supply, what do you do? Because this situation, apparently, makes you a complete loser with no prospects.
Had the government let the banks fail, and facilitated the easy repossession of properties in default, it would have led to property prices plummeting to the point where people could afford to buy them outright or to get a mortgage for them or to rent them cheaply.
The people who over borrowed in the naughties got to keep the properties they borrowed for and the bailout bill was handed to the students and young people had not borrowed for a mortgage before 2007.
Rightwing wrote: » Now, if you are offered accomodation in a 3 bed semi, but want a 4 bed detached, then there's not much even our Government can do.
oscarBravo wrote: » Just so we're clear, are you arguing that people are sleeping on the streets because the government is only offering them a 3 bed semi instead of a 4 bed detached? Because, if you are, I have more productive things to do - like maybe yelling into a hole in the ground - than try to have an intelligent discussion with you.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Are the people in Apollo house not homeless because they have lost their jobs and can't afford rent/mortgages? Are you saying the credit unions and "new banks" would have given unemployed people mortgages?
Rightwing wrote: » It wouldn't. Builders are finding it difficult to make a return on investment as it is. Government needs to greatly reduce levies so that builders can build affordable homes and still make a profit. The cost of a build remains the problem.
realitykeeper wrote: » "As it is" is different to how it would have been had the banks been allowed to fail. Iceland has no problem building houses, if fact they have had a building boom for years now. That is the power of capitalism, even in a bankrupt country, market forces will quickly save the day if only the politicians would stop trying to "help". When a crisis presents itself, it is far better to let the crisis play out. By preventing the crisis, the politicians have made a normal functioning housing market impossible. This is what stagnation looks like and it is going to spead to the rest of the economy. The bank part of the national debt should be defaulted on. The economy must be allowed to crash properly before it can start to grow.
realitykeeper wrote: » The houses were there and they would have been sold to the highest bidder. If the highest bidder could afford very little, then that would have been the selling price.
Get Real wrote: » Yeah so you've kind of just defeated your own thread. The highest bidder would have been a wealthy person with large cash reserves, so a rich person would have got a house on the cheap, how this benefits "ordinary" people I don't know. Anyway another flaw is these houses that would be sold off, where would the people occupying move to? It's much more to do with the lack of supply for housing. More people bidding for the one house, price gets pushed up. Simultaneously, people compete to rent property, and the rent increases with demand, the highest bidder gets it. This makes rents and home ownership unaffordable for many and gives rise to the situation of today. Not too sure about this hypothetical scenario you have of something which began to unravel almost a decade ago at this stage.
amcalester wrote: » How would the banks going bust reduce the cost of building?
Owryan wrote: » Why would new banks move into a market where all the previous banks had gone bust? Also, if all the houses in arrears were repossessed and sold on, where do the people who lost those houses go? If they couldnt pay a mortgage how can the buy another gaff?
realitykeeper wrote: » Why would they not? No competition is a rare luxury for businesses. A new bank would not be exposed to bad debts like the old banks. All the new banks would have to do is not be stupid like the old banks in order to thrive. If people made mistakes they should pay for their own mistakes. Other people should not have to be homeless so that the people who over borrowed can go on living in houses.
realitykeeper wrote: » Thats what happen in Iceland.
kippy wrote: » And what would happen all of those tens of thousands of people that worked in banks, financial institutions that suddenly went bust. Wouldn't they be homeless now? What would happen the pensioners whose pension funds were invested in those banks either in direct share schemes or as lenders to the banks in the first instance? (I am keeping the logic and reasoning here extremely simple for good reason)
realitykeeper wrote: » And I will keep my answers simple for a good reason Those who make bad investments loose all their money. Those who loose their jobs suffer hardships.
amcalester wrote: » That's not an answer. Iceland and Ireland may only differ by 1 letter but what happened in one will not necessarily happen in the other. How, specifically in relation to Ireland, would letting the banks go bust lower the cost of building?
realitykeeper wrote: » If the government were telling the truth when they said they could not borrow if they let the banks fail, then there would have been mass redundancies in the public sector/civil service. The social welfare supports would then be slashed. That would take a lot of money out of the economy. Naturally, that would cause prices to drop and the minimum wage would fall also. So, with the cost of goods, services and labour lower, the cost of building would be lower.
kippy wrote: » You are the one who titled the thread "The Irony of Irelands Homelessness Crisis" Do you really believe the homeless crisis as we we see it now would have been avoided IF all of those institutions were let fail? Suggesting that those who make bad investments lose their money or those who lose their jobs suffer hardships can surely be applied to those who are homeless currently??
realitykeeper wrote: » The homeless crisis would have happened and it would be history by now. Instead, a far more protracted and insurmountable homeless crisis is just getting started. Your second point is valid but those people would be about ten years into resolving their difficulties by now if the banks had been allowed to fail and if the economy had been allowed to crash.
kippy wrote: » Your suggestion would have been to put more people homeless initially in the hope that prices and accessibility to housing would decrease also and these unemployed folks would be able to afford a home - so they'd be unemployed but own a home? Look, I don't agree with all the decisions made in 2008/2009 but to force this brand of logic now is just silly.
