Is it just me or have SF vanished?

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm not spoonfeeding you. The costings and model of delivery are covered in the podcast. They are found to be credible by the country's number 1 economist on the subject. The figure you have above is your own concoction.

Concoction?

I think I showed the working out quite clearly......and I'm being generous as I ve assumed 0% construction inflation, and 0% cost of funds.

I don't doubt that there are parts of the country where you can build at those costs, but they are not near where the housing demand is.

......and that's even before we get to the wisdom of pushing an extra €6.5 billion worth of spending into (what was) a booming economy - not exactly counter-cyclical, is it?

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Concoction?

I think I showed the working out quite clearly......and I'm being generous as I ve assumed 0% construction inflation, and 0% cost of funds.

I don't doubt that there are parts of the country where you can build at those costs, but they are not near where the housing demand is.

......and that's even before we get to the wisdom of pushing an extra €6.5 billion worth of spending into (what was) a booming economy - not exactly counter-cyclical, is it?

Your workings are Fisher Price calculator stuff.

You have an economist whose career is to research this very subject who has scrutinized the plan and you think your back of an envelope working is superior to his.

I know who I'm listening to on this.

Yurt! wrote: »

It's actually Morning Ireland, so as not to send my friends on a wild goose chase I'll provide the link.

https://soundcloud.com/morning-ireland/housing-what-does-change-look-like

Lorcan Sirr takes you through it. The figures stack up sorry to tell you.

Do they?
What I heard in that were 2 academics unchallenged waxing lyrical on their theories and the first thing I was thinking was how many houses have they ever built?
The practicalities and the real world wouldn't be long making a mish mash of that pie in that sky
It's not actually rocket science to cure housing
Demand and supply
First supply the skilled builders
Second supply the incentive to build
Third said supply outstrips demand
Price falls

Mortelaro wrote: »

Do they?
What I heard in that were 2 academics unchallenged waxing lyrical on their theories and the first thing I was thinking was how many houses have they ever built?
The practicalities and the real world wouldn't be long making a mish mash of that pie in that sky
It's not actually rocket science to cure housing
Demand and supply
First supply the skilled builders
Second supply the incentive to build
Third said supply outstrips demand
Price falls

This is the most simplistic assessment possible, and it's only possible to think this way by being willfully deaf.

It's the reason we ended up in the mess we got into.

Yurt! wrote: »

This is the most simplistic assessment possible, and it's only possible to think this way by being willfully deaf.

It's the reason we ended up in the mess we got into.

Why? What we will end up with is a compromise of a lot of solutions anyway, hopefully ending in a reasonable result

Yurt! wrote: »

Your workings are Fisher Price calculator stuff.

You have an economist whose career is to research this very subject who has scrutinized the plan and you think your back of an envelope working is superior to his.

I know who I'm listening to on this.

Which bit of my calculations was wrong?

aido79

Mortelaro wrote: »

Oh ? Where would the other 14 billion come from to build the rest of the 100k houses ? (Assuming a cost of 200k per unit)

I'll give you a clue...they don't make android phones or use a windows operating system in their computers...

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

You didn't listen to the podcast I take it...

Hang on, we have dozens of articles producing hard figures on the cost of building homes, we have the actual costs incurred by DCC, we have the results of many tender processes, yet one journalist speaking with back of the envelope calculations on a single podcast trumps all of the expertise.

That pretty much sounds exactly how SF does policy, pretty Trumpian in essence.

all about the mane

aido79 wrote: »

I'll give you a clue...they don't make android phones or use a windows operating system in their computers...

And feck all those employed by them in this country. And all those in businesses directly and indirectly depending on them.

blanch152 wrote: »

Hang on, we have dozens of articles producing hard figures on the cost of building homes, we have the actual costs incurred by DCC, we have the results of many tender processes, yet one journalist speaking with back of the envelope calculations on a single podcast trumps all of the expertise.

That pretty much sounds exactly how SF does policy, pretty Trumpian in essence.

He's a housing economist actually, the best regarded one in the country. Sorry.

Nitrogan

Yurt! wrote: »

He's a housing economist actually, the best regarded one in the country. Sorry.

A Housing Economist?

Which University or professional guild accredits that qualification?

Yurt! wrote: »

He's a housing economist actually, the best regarded one in the country. Sorry.

He's one economist, dont be exaggerating his importance, many esteemed economists differ on many things,similar education, has he any practical experience of budgets and building houses?
Thought not
Was there any cross examination, contrary opinion or investigation of facts offered in your podcast? No
Ergo more hot air

tikkahunter

Yurt! wrote: »

He's a housing economist actually, the best regarded one in the country. Sorry.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/life/home-garden/homes/real-deal-modular-housing-shows-the-cost-of-construction-34652295.html

They are the ones beside Ikea . The end cost was scandalous. They are an absolute shambles. You can buy house in that area for 50-60 k less .

jimmycrackcorm

Yurt! wrote: »

An additional 6.5bn added to current spending commitments on social and affordable to reach 100k units over the stated period.

This was covered exhaustively around the election on both traditional media an social media.

It must not have been exhaustive enough as it's clearly stated 6.5bn to deliver 100k social and affordable units, in addition to what? Care to give the breakdown on how many social and affordable houses are currently being delivered and at what cost?

You know quite well that SF policy is to make unrealistic, unreasonable promises for that sizeable portion of the electorate who believe in the Venezuelan dream.

jimmycrackcorm

Yurt! wrote: »

The SF housing plan isn't a forever home charter in the least.

That's political guff you're peddling.

People should be able to discuss serious policy on serious issues without having that kind of stuff introduced.

Social housing in this country is a 4ever home. You're correct in saying that it isn't SF policy as it's current policy. Their policy is to make it an even bigger cheap giveaway.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Social housing in this country is a 4ever home. You're correct in saying that it isn't SF policy as it's current policy. Their policy is to make it an even bigger cheap giveaway.

You obviously didn't read the policy document or listen to the linked item from Morning Ireland

The vast majority of builds are intended to be affordable purchase under the Cluid model. Another significant portion will be affordable rental, and the minority of units social housing as we now know it.

So yes, you're spouting complete political guff.

Mortelaro wrote: »

He's one economist, dont be exaggerating his importance, many esteemed economists differ on many things,similar education, has he any practical experience of budgets and building houses?
Thought not
Was there any cross examination, contrary opinion or investigation of facts offered in your podcast? No
Ergo more hot air

You've provided no credible cross examination yourself. Just a poor understanding of the facts laid out and doctrinaire nonsense. Fairly typical brughaha and bully-boy tactics from FG supporters.

It's why you got shellacked at election time.

[Deleted User]

Yurt! wrote: »

It's actually Morning Ireland, so as not to send my friends on a wild goose chase I'll provide the link.

https://soundcloud.com/morning-ireland/housing-what-does-change-look-like

Lorcan Sirr takes you through it. The figures stack up sorry to tell you.

You don't have to be sorry to me for anything, I've no skin in this game.

I'm all for affordable social housing, same as everyone else.

The O'Cualann model is essentially an asset transfer from the State to private individuals at cut prices but if it works, how bad. Will be interesting to see if it can be scaled from 50 units to 10,000 units. Goes to show that the State can rely on the market to find solutions if the incentives are right.

Thanks for the link. Can you answer the other two questions btw.

Nitrogan

Yurt! wrote: »

You've provided no credible cross examination yourself. Just a poor understanding of the facts laid out and doctrinaire nonsense. Fairly typical brughaha and bully-boy tactics from FG supporters.

It's why you got shellacked at election time.

Donald Trump and the Brexit Party came from nowhere to achieve enough support to take over their countries. Why do a safe majority Irish people vote for anyone but Sinn Fein?

How bad do you have to be to be more unpopular than Trump and Farrage?

[Deleted User]

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Social housing in this country is a 4ever home. You're correct in saying that it isn't SF policy as it's current policy. Their policy is to make it an even bigger cheap giveaway.

In a nutshell, yes. O'Cualann houses are sold at cut price to the purchaser. Essentially the state forgoes the value of rates and the price of the land. The developer makes a small profit and the home owner gets a cheaper house.

It's an asset transfer of public land to private ownership. It's remarkably unsocialist, imo.

You can have debates about whether the state should give away public assets in such a fashion, but it's not correct to call it social housing, imo. Affordable housing would be a better term.

Yurt! wrote: »

He's a housing economist actually, the best regarded one in the country. Sorry.

Somehow, I think the "regard" he enjoys is because he supports SF's policy at some abstract level.

We had posters here citing Ferriter, for example, when he was critical of FG, but not so much when he was critical of SF (and the economic impact of unification).

SF tend to have a very ala carter approach when it comes to the experts they cite in support of their policies.

Yurt! wrote: »

You've provided no credible cross examination yourself. Just a poor understanding of the facts laid out and doctrinaire nonsense. Fairly typical brughaha and bully-boy tactics from FG supporters.

It's why you got shellacked at election time.

Would this be you equivicating again?
Tell me,how is my understanding of that morning Ireland advertorial poor?
I raised a few questions, none of which you answered
Your link
You're not defending it being(rather easily) torn apart

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

He's a housing economist actually, the best regarded one in the country. Sorry.

Best regarded by whom?

He is a Senior Lecturer in TUDublin, formerly DIT. He is not a Professor, he is just media-friendly.

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

You've provided no credible cross examination yourself. Just a poor understanding of the facts laid out and doctrinaire nonsense. Fairly typical brughaha and bully-boy tactics from FG supporters.

It's why you got shellacked at election time.

On the one hand we have one journalist economist on a podcast, possible politically motivated, on the other hand we have a mountain of evidence that he is wrong.

Yes somehow you think his thesis is the one that needs cross-examination.

[Deleted User]

Sultan_of_Ping wrote: »

Somehow, I think the "regard" he enjoys is because he supports SF's policy at some abstract level.

We had posters here citing Ferriter, for example, when he was critical of FG, but not so much when he was critical of SF (and the economic impact of unification).

SF tend to have a very ala carter approach when it comes to the experts they cite in support of their policies.

Far more interesting that they endorse a situation where the State loses both assets and taxes. When FG do that it's called neo-liberal. Goes to show that context is key I suppose.

RandomViewer

all about the mane wrote: »

They should never have been allowed to build there. The countryside is destroyed.

Rundale system, goes back hundreds of years,in later years council got 7,000 for development fees, another 1 or 2 for water and the ESB got 1800, more houses more money in the LA coffers add in a few bungs for planning and it had to happen

jimmycrackcorm

Yurt! wrote: »

You obviously didn't read the policy document or listen to the linked item from Morning Ireland

The vast majority of builds are intended to be affordable purchase under the Cluid model. Another significant portion will be affordable rental, and the minority of units social housing as we now know it.

So yes, you're spouting complete political guff.

But I did... It sounds so dreamy. Obviously costed as can usually be expected.

It's almost as if the brothers Grimm wrote the policy document. How does Cluid housing work when it gets tenants like Sinn Feins own Violet Anne Wynn? Apparently the argument is that private housing doesn't provide an asset at the end . But SF won't end that - there's no way they will stop council tenants buying out our public housing.

234k per house is what is quoted on what you have linked - so how many houses will the extra 6.5bn provide. Not 100k houses for sure.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

234k per house is what is quoted on what you have linked - so how many houses will the extra 6.5bn provide. Not 100k houses for sure.

That's because nobody, not SF or anyone else is claiming you'll build 100k houses @ 234k for 6.5bn.

You obviously didn't take the cotton wool out of your ears when listening.

blanch152 wrote: »

On the one hand we have one journalist economist on a podcast, possible politically motivated, on the other hand we have a mountain of evidence that he is wrong.

Yes somehow you think his thesis is the one that needs cross-examination.

He's not a journalist-economist, he's a professional housing economist lecturing and researching out of DIT. I don't see any evidence he's politically motivated, but it sure is hell inconvenient that an expert on the economics of housing and housing provision endorses a policy position you spend so much time trying to mock. I'm not sure you've spent a second even trying to understand it - your default position is to sling insults, even though it's blatantly a better thought out policy than anything FG have come up with. It's why FG don't deserve a vote, even with credible solutions staring them in the face, they don't take time to understand them and find them deeply threatening. Fact is, they never had any intention to lift a finger and seriously address housing.

If there's evidence he's 'wrong' it hasn't been provided in this thread.