Graham wrote: » Mod Note friendly reminder this is the Accommodation & Property forum and the topic is "Irish Property Market 2020". Some off-topic posts deleted. One of the medical forums may be a better venue for discussing the effect of Soya on your man bits.
Timing belt wrote: » Overall CPI is not high which is what you would expect with a recession and the fact that oil prices have dropped but if you have a look at the main consumer items and compare them to last year you can already see Inflation. Remember this is with a depressed oil price and strong Euro (on account of the amount of stimulus undertaken in Europe) Output has slowed down due to Covid and there is more money in circulation which means more money chasing less goods.It will be Q1/Q2 next year when will start seeing a increase in CPI and the big question is will this lead to wage inflation because if it does then house prices will go up.
cnocbui wrote: » Inflation has been decreasing for two decades in terms of the long trend. If you ask me, this has principally been cause by a decline in consumer purchasing power due to stagnated or declining real incomes (US incomes back to 1970' levels, for instance), which, leaving aside neo-con politics effects on labour bargaining, I personally believe is because of multinational tax avoidance having lead to tax increases on wage and salary earners as governments try to make up for the difference. This effect has been confirmed by the OECD, not that many sheep have paid attention. The main problem with the last two decades is a lack of consumer spending and the money to do it with, not a surfeit of it. There is no lack of goods, in fact, there are too many companies chasing too few consumer discretionary dollars. This is not a recpie for inflation. Another effect of diasterous neo-con politics has been to exacerbate the unequal distribution of wealth - which of course is the whole point of the rancid doctrine. The wealthy don't spend, they invest and try and create more wealth. That game is now as oversubscribed as the availabilty of goods, hence interest rates declining to zero. The monied few in their relentless pursuit of return, have ramped up involvement in their centuries old favourite, property. If you want to see what really pushes property prices up, look at Australia, NZ, London, Seattle, Vancouver, San Francisco. Governments, IMO, should have taken serious measures to limit investment by corporations and wealthy individuals in the residential property market. The Irish government, as usual, has encouraged it with near tax free earnings for the vulture funds. Then of course there's the knee-jerk reaction to the social housing non-problem which is to use the money obtained from the bled-dry consumer to compete with said consumer in the residential property market, thus driving up prices and reducing further their already near non-existant discretionary purchasing power. Where's the door? Let me out, I want to get as far away from these idiots as possible.
HotDudeLife wrote: » It appears a bunch of landlords are exiting the property market, tonnes of ex rentals for sale in Dublin the past 2 weeks.
Potatoeman wrote: » Have a look one the daft map view. I was looking myself The last week. Prices are all over the place with properties 5 mins from each other up to 200k apart and some with price drops. They go pretty fast though if the area is decent.
KennisWhale wrote: » In a nutshell. The property market is a pyramid scheme.
Idbatterim wrote: excellent post! the entire thing is a disgusting scandal! from top to bottom... free housing for many, paid for by those, many of whom cant even afford it themselves. Have you lads watched this below documentary? its brilliant!
Wanderer78 wrote: » Our property issues have virtually nothing to do with the welfare class, but more to do with the rentier classes, particularly the fire sectors (finance, insurance and real estate), whos prime objective is to continually engage in activities that cause asset price inflation
PropQueries wrote: To put this 'insurmountable' problem into perspective, we are borrowing c. €40 Billion between this year and next year to fight Covid-19. €40 Billion would have built 160,000 houses at €250,000 each if the will had been there pre-Covid-19.
PropQueries wrote: » I'd agree. For example, there were 68,963 households on the waiting list for social housing in December 2019.To put this 'insurmountable' challenge into perspective, we are borrowing c. €40 Billion between this year and next year to fight Covid-19. €40 Billion would have built 160,000 houses at €250,000 each if the will had been there pre-Covid-19. Also, the 'welfare class' account for a relatively small percentage of the 'welfare' budget each year. In 2019, almost 40% of the 'welfare' budget went on pensions, 20% went on 'illness, disability and carers' and 15% went on 'children' i.e. children's allowance etc.
Wanderer78 wrote: » ....and rising public debt is far safer than rising private debt, the activities of the fire sectors causes rising private debt, which ultimately lead to 08
awec wrote: » This is such a silly argument. The will wasn't there. It wasn't there among politicians, and it wasn't there among the voters. Any party that suggested increasing public debt by 40 billion to build houses would have been laughed out of it and killed at the polls.
awec wrote: The will wasn't there. It wasn't there among politicians, and it wasn't there among the voters. Any party that suggested increasing public debt by 40 billion to build houses would have been laughed out of it and killed at the polls.
Timing belt wrote: » It’s not that silly considering we are paying 1bn a year on HAP. 10bn spent on housing Would pay for itself in less than 10 years and lower rent for the masses
Timing belt wrote: » It’s not that silly considering we are paying 1bn a year on HAP. 10bn spent on housing Would pay for itself in less than 10 years and lower rent for the masses.If there was a political party that advocated this besides SF they would walk into power.
awec wrote: » It's a fairly silly notion. Even the Shinner's housing policy was a spend of ~2bn, and they made a song and dance of their policy being fully costed with no borrowing. Had they proposed any scheme that involved mass borrowing they would have been slaughtered for it. It's a bit rich to retrospectively say "sure if the will had been there we could have borrowed massively in the past and solved the housing issue". Absolutely NOBODY wanted this, it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise in hindsight.
Timing belt wrote: » I am not talking about hindsight. The environment has changed with the ECB keeping gov debt yields low with mass QE. A 10 year bond with negative yields means that it is possible to build and still have the debt paid off before the end of the 10 years with savings on HAP.
awec wrote: I do not think there is much appetite among the population to borrow to build houses, which is why all of the parties steer clear of such policies, including the opposition.
awec wrote: » SF never advocated it. SF housing policy was pushed as a fully costed model that did not increase the national debt, and indeed it was celebrated by all those critical of government housing policy as the way forward. Again, it's a bit much to say that any party that advocated this would walk into power. No party in Ireland would advocate this, except maybe the alphabet soup loony left and they can barely agree among themselves what day of the week it is.
landofthetree wrote: » What about the cost of maintenance?
awec wrote: » PropQueries was talking in hindsight. I do not think there is much appetite among the population to borrow to build houses, which is why all of the parties steer clear of such policies, including the opposition.
Timing belt wrote: Public opinion can change and it doesn’t need to be 10bn even 1bn would make a big difference to address supply and at the same time lower rents. They government don’t even need to build they could provide a floor by saying any houses not sold to public they will buy at x. It’s makes sound financial sense.
Timing belt wrote: » Public opinion can change and it doesn’t need to be 10bn even 1bn would make a big difference to address supply and at the same time lower rents. They government don’t even need to build they could provide a floor by saying any houses not sold to public they will buy at x. It’s makes sound financial sense.
Wanderer78 wrote: » Any evidence of increasing supply, reduces price?
Timing belt wrote: » It doesn’t need to reduces property prices as it will stimulate the economy which in turn provides greater demand.
