Right to a house?

...exactly, this is potentially where we re heading back to, whereby the majority of the ownership of assets, in particular related to property and land, becomes heavily concentrated, only this time the owners are larger businesses, corporations, institutions, such as financial institutions, i.e. banks, etc etc

yes, financialsation has become one of the main tools of such political ideologies, i.e. so called neoliberal ideologies, i.e. empower major sectors of the economy such as the fire sectors(finance, insurance and real estate), disempower the political system, and the work force, and happy happy days!

its always important to remember, central banks can actually never truly run out of money, but there are limits to how much debt your economy can take, but we have become over reliant on the private sector money supply, i.e. the credit supply, whos main purpose has now become to inflate asset markets via speculation etc, this in turn has caused a rapid rise in private debt, of which is now playing a far more critical role in our economic crisis, including in creating them, i.e. 08!

the only way to counteract this is by becoming more reliant on public money supplies, i.e. public debt, and truly to start enacting wide scale debt forgiveness programs, particularly in the private domain, i.e. private debt, but the reality is, this is very unlikely to occur, so, we re stuck.....

we clearly need to ramp up the supply of public housing, but these properties should never be allowed to be sold into the private market, we must implement measures to protect such tenents, but also implement measures to protect potential buyers, and even sellers in the private market, none of that is easy to do, and i also suspect these measures may never occur, so again, we re stuck, in a rapidly deteriorating situation for most, if not all!

People in the 90s were upwardly mobile as well. They just the same as now wanted to live in bigger nicer houses in nice areas so bidding up happened. People normally are taking the max amount a bank will lend them to get the best possible house. The amount the bank would lend them increased significantly ergo...

Except that is all overblown and not true. How much property is owned by private business compared to private home owners? People like to go on about rent only properties but they don't have much of the market at all last time i looked it was less than 2% of the rental market not even all housing.

Companies are not buying up existing houses and renting them they are developing property and providing accommodation that wouldn't exist. A few full purchases of entire building projects are 1 or 2 but people like to thing it is everything being built. Just isn't true

I will accept some people are talking about it as if it is the thin edge of a wedge but the problem with that it requires a very long time and the disappearance of existing housing stock.

Within the next 10+ years how much of the housing occupied by OAPs will come to the market? The building boom of the 70-80s are going to come back on the market at some time and the residents are dying and will continue to do so. Those houses are actually too big for many people to either afford or live in so the houses will be split up. See it on my own road with 5 houses already done. The same thing happened to the large Georgian houses in Dublin. This is a natural evolution of housing stock. Happen in all cities in the western world as they expand.

There are many things that can change and will change that people don't even consider. Society has dramatically changed and 3 bed houses don't suit modern needs. Lots of single people now compared to the past and they aren't becoming priests and nuns as they once would have. So much more to change and housing costs are just a factor. Looking back at parents and grandparents housing options only and ignoring the limited choices they had misses lots. WFH for many jobs will change the very nature of housing demands dramatically and we have to see what happens there.

Lets be clear the standard of living has dramatically improved even in my life time let alone my parents. Harking on about the good old days is and ignoring the improvements from then is convenient. In the old days if you had a child out of wedlock you had the child taken off you and possibly sold and put into a form of slavery. Now you get state aid and housing. In fact so is the father. I know a couple that had 2 kids together and broke up. She has a 3 bedroom house, one room for her and one for each child. He has a 3 bed house too as it is one room for him and one for each child because they have shared custody. That is a huge amount of extra supports that have costs than the good old days.

What do you want to happen? Do we reduce social welfare programs and only focus on better use to help more people or keep trying for the better standards? As I said there is technically only one person living next door to me in a 3 bed house with 2 careers changing over on days to another 2. Before that it was 4 adults and 3 children which wouldn't be allowed under social housing policies. You can't ignore the standards and practices that have a higher demand for social housing are not part of the issue.

The funds own a tiny percentage of residential properties here and most of which wouldn't exist in the first place without them.

As I explained it isn't because to get 50% of the housing market they would have to built a 100% of what exists already and nobody to be build anything else.

That's not really true.

My sister married a Scotsman and they live in Glasgow and have two daughters finishing secondary school now.

I was asking her the other day what they are going to do when they finish Uni and her answer was buy apartments or houses. She says they are not expensive even in the city by comparison to Ireland or Dublin specifically so she has no concerns. I accept that Glasgow isnt London, Dublin or New York but it is a pretty major english speaking city where accommodation isnt out of reach (as long as you dont mind a lot of rain!).

This is a good thing if properly regulated.

You said "near to an open door policy" to be 100% correct. Can you explain how you mean that and what is the proof of such an outlandish claim?

You are not one bit cynical!