Medium & Long Term Property Market Chat

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 9:16am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The noughties was the nearest everybody left borrow what they like, builders left borrow what they like, lenders left lend what they wanted to. We know how that ended.

yup, a well moderated, great moderation, the greatest ever moment of equilibrium ever experienced by mankind!

fliball123 · 29-09-2020 10:31am

schmittel wrote: »

Actually thinking about my previous two posts, therein lies the political solution.

Imagine if a party stepped up and said here's our plan to overhaul the mortgage process:

scrap the CB lending limits
allow buyers to borrow as much as the bank will be willing to lend them
allow banks to take rent payments into account as well as savings
if the borrower gets into arrears they can hand the keys back to bank
this will increase competition and reduce rates

BUT in order to do this we will have to overhaul the repossession process, here's our plan:

repossessions will be accelerated on a case by case basis. For example mortgages that owe 1 million, have 5 spare beds, and have not paid anything in 10 years will be first on the list.

All repossessions will be means tested with those most easily able to afford a change in circumstances will be prioritised.

If you are in genuine difficulties and in a house that is equivalent of the social housing alternative, we will convert it to social housing.

i.e nobody who is in dire straits will be homeless.

I can't imagine anybody would have a problem with the above. In fact I think it would be kind of popular.

Wow I am actually in agreement with you for once on what should happen, the problem is we have way too many left leaning parties and organisations which seem to shout loudest and when family homes come under fire you will hear every bleeding heart sad stories from the "how Daddy had to sell the Porsche and Mummy cant do her Cantonese Monk Yoga classes anymore and now they want to take our 10million mansion family home

" to the real hardship that would happen to the average Joe if their house was taken from them. There is not one party out there who have the balls to start taking back family homes during a pandemic it would ruin them completely. It would be labelled as the banks winning over the common man again .

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 10:34am

fliball123 wrote: »

Wow I am actually in agreement with you for once on what should happen, the problem is we have way too many left leaning parties and organisations which seem to shout loudest and when family homes come under fire you will hear every bleeding heart sad stories from the "how Daddy had to sell the Porsche and Mummy cant do her Cantonese Monk Yoga classes anymore and now they want to take our 10million mansion family home " to the real hardship that would happen to the average Joe if their house was taken from them. There is not one party out there who have the balls to start taking back family homes during a pandemic it would ruin them completely. It would be labelled as the banks winning over the common man again .

jaysis, this must be exactly the situation with the folks that are currently stuck in temporary(permeant) accommodation! to be fair the banks havent looked too bad after 08, in comparison!

neutral guy · 29-09-2020 11:00am

fliball123 wrote: »

Wow I am actually in agreement with you for once on what should happen, the problem is we have way too many left leaning parties and organisations which seem to shout loudest and when family homes come under fire you will hear every bleeding heart sad stories from the "how Daddy had to sell the Porsche and Mummy cant do her Cantonese Monk Yoga classes anymore and now they want to take our 10million mansion family home " to the real hardship that would happen to the average Joe if their house was taken from them. There is not one party out there who have the balls to start taking back family homes during a pandemic it would ruin them completely. It would be labelled as the banks winning over the common man again .

When government will have save banks during recession coming this will be solved very quickly.The talks about repossession started already.I think next year those Mummy and Daddy will fly through the doors.

fliball123 · 29-09-2020 11:29am

neutral guy wrote: »

When government will have save banks during recession coming this will be solved very quickly.The talks about repossession started already.I think next year those Mummy and Daddy will fly through the doors.

There is no way that there will be repossessions en mass. Every top party is gaining when they are talking about helping the poor , the homeless so if they start fecking people out of their family house when jobs are being lost and little chance of getting another the lefties will be out in the street, Cant see it happening it would spell the end of the current gov if it did

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 11:31am

fliball123 wrote: »

There is no way that there will be repossessions en mass. Every top party is gaining when they are talking about helping the poor , the homeless so if they start fecking people out of their family house when jobs are being lost and little chance of getting another the lefties will be out in the street, Cant see it happening it would spell the end of the current gov if it did

they seem to be doing an amazing job, truly helping those folks out of temporary(permeant) accommodation!

fliball123 · 29-09-2020 11:44am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

they seem to be doing an amazing job, truly helping those folks out of temporary(permeant) accommodation!

Well I am not saying its right I mean at the end of the day someone has to pay for it so the people paying their mortgage in the right way are paying with higher interest rates

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 11:46am

fliball123 wrote: »

Well I am not saying its right I mean at the end of the day someone has to pay for it so the people paying their mortgage in the right way are paying with higher interest rates

pay for what, by whom? why are people paying higher rates?

fliball123 · 29-09-2020 11:47am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

pay for what, by whom? why are people paying higher rates?

Well if you compare mortgage interest rates here with the rest of Europe we are paying more due to the the built in risk factor of banks not being able to repossess (or the difficulty in repossessing) the family home

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 11:51am

fliball123 wrote: »

Well if you compare mortgage interest rates here with the rest of Europe we are paying more due to the the built in risk factor of banks not being able to repossess (or the difficulty in repossessing) the family home

or it could be seen as, the banks are screwing us, the banks feel theyre not protected enough by new protection measures for a potentially serious downturn, banks have been experiencing a decreasing demand for new credit, since 08, and has now accelerated in the last few months.....

Ray Palmer · 29-09-2020 12:02pm

Robots won't replace jobs like people think. Easy to see in the real world. Go to the USA and go into a car park. They have people instead of automatic barriers.
It is simply cheaper to hire a person. A robot will have to be cheaper and customers will have to be happy about that. The French are not going to allow machines do their jobs and customers won't accept it. That means EU restrictions and taxes on robot use. On top of the limitation of their use that technology won't overcome.

This effect on housing will be pretty limited in the long term as shops and restaurants etc... will require humans. Such jobs require population density. There are huge social and economic pressures for population density. Covid is temporary.

There is simply going to be less hosuing built for a long time. We were undersuppling housing beforehand and this is going to get worse. Even with migration slowed we have an increasing population. Do you think people with free time aren't making more babies?

There is a worse housing shortage coming and house prices don't drop in that situation. Even with less money in the economy it doesn't mean value drops. If property price drops everything has dropped including wages of everyone. Unlikey but a larger divide in households is. Not all will be effected equally. Lots of low skilled jobs are going one way or the other. While other jobs are not effected at all and even in more demand. For some households that means more money while others it could mean no money. It depends on how the income is earned some will have a couple half affected and some with no effect at all with the worst case both.

House prices in my view will actually go up in value as a percentage of median wage. In price terms that could mean a drop but they won't be more affordable to most people.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 12:06pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Robots won't replace jobs like people think. Easy to see in the real world. Go to the USA and go into a car park. They have people instead of automatic barriers.
It is simply cheaper to hire a person. A robot will have to be cheaper and customers will have to be happy about that. The French are not going to allow machines do their jobs and customers won't accept it. That means EU restrictions and taxes on robot use. On top of the limitation of their use that technology won't overcome.

This effect on housing will be pretty limited in the long term as shops and restaurants etc... will require humans. Such jobs require population density. There are huge social and economic pressures for population density. Covid is temporary.

There is simply going to be less hosuing built for a long time. We were undersuppling housing beforehand and this is going to get worse. Even with migration slowed we have an increasing population. Do you think people with free time aren't making more babies?

There is a worse housing shortage coming and house prices don't drop in that situation. Even with less money in the economy it doesn't mean value drops. If property price drops everything has dropped including wages of everyone. Unlikey but a larger divide in households is. Not all will be effected equally. Lots of low skilled jobs are going one way or the other. While other jobs are not effected at all and even in more demand. For some households that means more money while others it could mean no money. It depends on how the income is earned some will have a couple half affected and some with no effect at all with the worst case both.

House prices in my view will actually go up in value as a percentage of median wage. In price terms that could mean a drop but they won't be more affordable to most people.

we ve no clue what the future holds for us, we ve been extremely crap at accurately predicted it in the past, we may never get any good at it, we ve no real clue how tech is gonna change our world in the future, and past outcomes, of increasing employment due to tech, is not guaranteed in the future, we simply havent a clue. but if we dont get a handle of our wealth distribution problems, and quickly, we mightnt have a future to be worrying about, and property and land is playing a critical role in this problem.

hometruths · 29-09-2020 12:23pm

fliball123 wrote: »

Wow I am actually in agreement with you for once on what should happen, the problem is we have way too many left leaning parties and organisations which seem to shout loudest and when family homes come under fire you will hear every bleeding heart sad stories from the "how Daddy had to sell the Porsche and Mummy cant do her Cantonese Monk Yoga classes anymore and now they want to take our 10million mansion family home " to the real hardship that would happen to the average Joe if their house was taken from them. There is not one party out there who have the balls to start taking back family homes during a pandemic it would ruin them completely. It would be labelled as the banks winning over the common man again .

The politics of it is exactly why the first part of the post is important. i.e governments says:

"We are going to reform the mortgage lending rules to make it better for everybody who is struggling to get a mortgage, but in order to do so we need to start repossessing where necessary.

The unfortunate consequences are that this family is going to lose out 10million mansion."

To be honest I am more surprised that politicians have the balls to allow them to keep the 10 million mansion, as per the current situation.

PropQueries · 29-09-2020 12:37pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There is simply going to be less hosuing built for a long time. We were undersuppling housing beforehand and this is going to get worse. Even with migration slowed we have an increasing population. Do you think people with free time aren't making more babies?

There is a worse housing shortage coming and house prices don't drop in that situation.

Actually housing construction has held up remarkably well given the covid restrictions with Cairn Homes stating a few weeks ago that they are already back to 85% pre-covid construction levels. We're also expected to have house completions hit 18,000 this year despite the construction shutdown (link below).

In relation to the pre-covid projections for housing demand going forward, those projections were primarily based on mass immigration continuing indefinitely which is unlikely now for at least the next 5 years e.g. hospitality wil be on its knees and construction work will be well down e.g. we will be building less offices, hotels, student accommodation units etc. even if residential building stays up or even increases.

According to the Central Bank last December: "The paper finds that around 34,000 dwellings would be required per year until the end of the next decade assuming unchanged household formation rates. This scenario is based on net inward migration of 30,000 per annum, a figure in line with the levels of inward migration observed in 2017 and 2018. Assuming a lower level of net inward migration of 10,000 per annum, annual average housing demand is estimated at around 26,500 per annum out to 2030."

I think we can reliably predict that the levels of net migration of c. 30,000 (that's the amount of immigration exceeding emigration each year) in the Central Bank report above won't be anywhere near this higher figure for many years to come and we're still continuing to build plenty of homes. We also had c.90,000 vacant livable homes in Ireland pre-covid as per the GeoDirectory Survey Q2 2020. That's three years housing supply right there even at the higher projections for housing demand.

Never mind all those student accommodation units (about an extra 15,000 bed spaces built or already now under construction in Dublin over the past few years) that will need people to fill them over the next two years as the international students aren't coming back next year either as they would have to decide to come here from next January and we will still be in lockdown at that stage. The Point Campus in Dublin has already requested permission to convert 600 of their units to residential permanently.

In relation to more babies etc. the population of 0-34 year olds in Ireland actually declined by 72,000 between 2011 and 2016 so I don't see where that will come from without continued mass immigration.

I won't even go near the upcoming changes by the OECD to the international tax regime and all sides agree this will not be good for Ireland no matter the outcome.

Link to projected 18,000 house completions this year despite covid: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/house-completions-to-hit-18-000-despite-construction-shutdown-1.4356648

neutral guy · 29-09-2020 1:07pm

Builders has already sold 100s of houses which they delay to build at the moment
So industry will be all right for the while
The problems builders will have around mid of the next year.
If there will be serious issues I think some of them will be employed on housing projects so until end of next year them future will be guaranteed.
Repossessions.
Already some €9 billion in additional spending has been committed and there is more to come. A very serious hit is also coming to tax revenue – so the State’s books will be hit on both sides.
In starting to raise money to pay for this, Ireland got off to a good start this week as the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA), which manages the State’s debt, raised €6 billion in borrowings at a negligible interest rate of less than 0.25 per cent. And some funding may now be available from European Union sources as a result of the agreement reached by EU finance ministers.
That will be 15 billion already which will not enough
Banks will be hit by private/business debts a lot harder then in 2008.Then everything will start
The economy crash in 2008 cost Ireland 42 billions.Per first 9 months of Covid country spent 9 billions already and more to come.
In the last recession we had shops/cafe/restourants/hotels working.Planes was flying/airports were full.This time all this will be dead.
The unemployment will be double of 2008 digits.
By official government information there will be no vaccine and country will have live with Covid at least another 6/9 months .
So only by facts above you can imagine what gona happen with property market in another 2 years
The repossessions will start next year I absolutely sure about it .

Hubertj · 29-09-2020 1:28pm

schmittel wrote: »

The politics of it is exactly why the first part of the post is important. i.e governments says:

"We are going to reform the mortgage lending rules to make it better for everybody who is struggling to get a mortgage, but in order to do so we need to start repossessing where necessary.

The unfortunate consequences are that this family is going to lose out 10million mansion."

To be honest I am more surprised that politicians have the balls to allow them to keep the 10 million mansion, as per the current situation.

have any political parties included addressing long term mortgage arrears in their manifestos? Has a party even attempted to develop a policy on it? All i've ever read or heard is "engage with the banks and work something out". If there was a medium term plan it could attract more lenders to the market if they deemed that risk was reducing.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 1:29pm

Hubertj wrote: »

have any political parties included addressing long term mortgage arrears in their manifestos? Has a party even attempted to develop a policy on it? All i've ever read or heard is "engage with the banks and work something out". If there was a medium term plan it could attract more lenders to the market if they deemed that risk was reducing.

...and im sure it would resolve our housing and accommodation issues?

Hubertj · 29-09-2020 1:46pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and im sure it would resolve our housing and accommodation issues?

Lower mortgage rates means people have more disposable income. More competition in market means consumers have a choice. Prices will fall obviously. If mortgages Also get cheaper for those that are it will help them as well.
Medium to long term government policy on different types of affordable housing is also required. There is no magic fix despite what a bomber writes in a book. What we don’t want is no construction for years so we end up with another crisis down the line

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 1:49pm

Hubertj wrote: »

Lower mortgage rates means people have more disposable income. More competition in market means consumers have a choice. Prices will fall obviously. If mortgages Also get cheaper for those that are it will help them as well.
Medium to long term government policy on different types of affordable housing is also required. There is no magic fix despite what a bomber writes in a book. What we don’t want is no construction for years so we end up with another crisis down the line

have lower rates, resolved this issue in the past? have prices fallen in the past due to these type of measures?

Hubertj · 29-09-2020 1:54pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

have lower rates, resolved this issue in the past? have prices fallen in the past due to these type of measures?

Have prices fallen in the past due to a recession? Have repossessions been addressed in the past? How many new entrants to the banking/mortgage in the last decade (avant aside)? I don’t know the answer to the last 2 questions!

hometruths · 29-09-2020 1:55pm

Hubertj wrote: »

have any political parties included addressing long term mortgage arrears in their manifestos? Has a party even attempted to develop a policy on it? All i've ever read or heard is "engage with the banks and work something out". If there was a medium term plan it could attract more lenders to the market if they deemed that risk was reducing.

That's my understanding as well. Engage with the banks!

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 1:56pm

Hubertj wrote: »

Have prices fallen in the past due to a recession? Have repossessions been addressed in the past? How many new entrants to the banking/mortgage in the last decade (avant aside)? I don’t know the answer to the last 2 questions!

have we addressed the issues in the financial sector, regarding credit creation, which has correlated with rising prices in the past?

hometruths · 29-09-2020 1:57pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and im sure it would resolve our housing and accommodation issues?

In your opinion what are our biggest "housing and accommodation issues"?

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 1:59pm

schmittel wrote: »

In your opinion what are our biggest "housing and accommodation issues"?

supply of course, affordability, low wage inflation in comparison to property prices

Hubertj · 29-09-2020 2:03pm

schmittel wrote: »

In your opinion what are our biggest "housing and accommodation issues"?

i'd say populism is another issue to add to the list

hometruths · 29-09-2020 2:05pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

supply of course, affordability, low wage inflation in comparison to property prices

solving the mortgage arrears problem should go someway to helping supply and affordability.

Doubt it will have much impact on wage inflation!

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 2:07pm

schmittel wrote: »

solving the mortgage arrears problem should go someway to helping supply and affordability.

Doubt it will have much impact on wage inflation!

how is it solvable?

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 2:07pm

Hubertj wrote: »

i'd say populism is another issue to add to the list

please explain?

hometruths · 29-09-2020 2:09pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

how is it solvable?

Clearly there are only two solutions to the mortgage arrears problem.

Either the mortgage holders start paying their mortgages or the banks start repossessing houses.

Anything else is some variation of extend and pretend.

Hubertj · 29-09-2020 2:09pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

please explain?

SF win votes in GE based on some socialist boll*xology peddled by bombers. Many people think its a simple fix, which is a LIE.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 2:11pm

schmittel wrote: »

Clearly there are only two solutions to the mortgage arrears problem.

Either the mortgage holders start paying their mortgages or the banks start repossessing houses.

Anything else is some variation of extend and pretend.

what if either cant be done, or only the repossessions are successful?

is this what is exactly what we ve been doing in relation to our more serious macro problems?

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 2:11pm

Hubertj wrote: »

SF win votes in GE based on some socialist boll*xology peddled by bombers. Many people think its a simple fix, which is a LIE.

wouldnt be overly concerned about sf and the left, very unlikely theyll get into power, whether theyre in government or not

hometruths · 29-09-2020 2:22pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what if either cant be done, or only the repossessions are successful?

is this what is exactly what we've been doing in relation to our more serious macro problems?

There is no reason that both cannot be done.

A combination of above should be possible, i.e those who can afford it, pay, and those who cannot get repossessed.

The only reason this combination cannot be achieved is that if nobody can afford to pay, in which case then all should be repossessed.

This is the simple nature of economic cycles. In good times, things are prosperous, and inevitably capital gets misallocated. Things turn bad and it is necessary to flush out the inefficient uses of capital, absorb losses, and put the remaining capital to better use.

This is not some revelatory new ideology. It is what happens in economies all over the world.

fliball123 · 29-09-2020 2:54pm

schmittel wrote: »

There is no reason that both cannot be done.

A combination of above should be possible, i.e those who can afford it, pay, and those who cannot get repossessed.

The only reason this combination cannot be achieved is that if nobody can afford to pay, in which case then all should be repossessed.

This is the simple nature of economic cycles. In good times, things are prosperous, and inevitably capital gets misallocated. Things turn bad and it is necessary to flush out the inefficient uses of capital, absorb losses, and put the remaining capital to better use.

This is not some revelatory new ideology. It is what happens in economies all over the world.

There is no chance and you can mark this post absolutely no chance of mass repossessions. If they did not do it when the country was on the upper no government party will entertain the family home been taken by the bank when we are in a recession, jobs are being lost and a global pandemic is in place. Way too many left leaning mouthpieces who will shout it from the rooftops and it would spell the end of the current government. Already they are losing ground to parties to their left who are championing a house for everyone should be a right in this country. The problem is the banks were handcuffed and where shot down and demonized during the last recession when they tried to take the home back. Now we have MABS, PIPS and all other kinds of left leaning orgs and left leaning solutions that boots the problem down the road. When something is in place like this it is very hard to take it away.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 3:42pm

schmittel wrote:

This is the simple nature of economic cycles. In good times, things are prosperous, and inevitably capital gets misallocated. Things turn bad and it is necessary to flush out the inefficient uses of capital, absorb losses, and put the remaining capital to better use.

....but markets are efficient! Where did this capital come from, and where does it go to?

schmittel wrote:

This is not some revelatory new ideology. It is what happens in economies all over the world.

So, what happens the individuals that find themselves repossed?

hometruths · 29-09-2020 3:49pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....but markets are efficient! Where did this capital come from, and where does it go to?

So, what happens the individuals that find themselves repossed?

The market here is not efficient. That’s the point.

The same thing that happens to individuals who move out of any house. They buy or rent another one. They pay for it out of their own resources, and if they are unable to do so the government will provide support.

Again this is not some sort of wacky new theory.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 3:51pm

schmittel wrote:

The market here is not efficient. Thatâ€™s the point.

....but why aren't the markets efficient here?

schmittel wrote:

The same thing that happens to individuals who move out of any house. They buy or rent another one. They pay for it out of their own resources, and if they are unable to do so the government will provide support.

....and the government is doing this by.....

hometruths · 29-09-2020 3:57pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....but why aren't the markets efficient here?

....and the government is doing this by.....

What?! We are talking about a market in which some participants treat loan repayments as optional. That is not a model of efficiency.

The government does it by hap and social housing. I think I know where you’re going with this so can you do us both a favour and get there quickly?!

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 4:00pm

schmittel wrote: »

What?! We are talking about a market in which some participants treat loan repayments as optional. That is not a model of efficiency.

The government does it by hap and social housing. I think I know where you’re going with this so can you do us both a favour and get there quickly?!

im trying to understand your logic, so please bare with me. thank you

but i really thought the market was always efficient?

...but what about those stuck in temporary(permeant) accommodation?

hometruths · 29-09-2020 4:04pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im trying to understand your logic, so please bare with me. thank you

but i really thought the market was always efficient?

...but what about those stuck in temporary(permeant) accommodation?

The way you are drawing this out could become tedious for other posters.

You thought wrong. Government policy often competes with the efficiency of markets, sometimes for better sometimes for worse.

re temporary accommodation are you talking about the people in temporary accommodation right now or the people that would be in temporary accommodation if their house was repossessed?

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 4:07pm

schmittel wrote: »

The way you are drawing this out could become tedious for other posters.

You thought wrong. Government policy often competes with the efficiency of markets, sometimes for better sometimes for worse.

re temporary accommodation are you talking about the people in temporary accommodation right now or the people that would be in temporary accommodation if their house was repossessed?

...but i always thought markets were efficient in open economies such as ours? so is the answer, we remove government from the equation?

im talking about both

hometruths · 29-09-2020 4:11pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...but i always thought markets were efficient in open economies such as ours? so is the answer, we remove government from the equation?

im talking about both

The problem with repossessions is political. We cannot remove the government altogether I would like to see a change in policy as per my previous post on the subject. Have you read it?

Re temporary if somebody requires temporary accommodation after their home has been repossessed, government should provide it for them, just as any other citizen who cannot afford their own home.

Re those in temporary accommodation they will remain there until something more permanent becomes available, which will be sooner.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 4:13pm

schmittel wrote: »

The problem with repossessions is political. We cannot remove the government altogether I would like to see a change in policy as per my previous post on the subject. Have you read it?

Re temporary if somebody requires temporary accommodation after their home has been repossessed, government should provide it for them, just as any other citizen who cannot afford their own home.

Re those in temporary accommodation they will remain there until something more permanent becomes available, which will be sooner.

...so by any chance is the market actually not completely able to provide us with all of our needs?

is 10 years a definition of soon?

hometruths · 29-09-2020 4:15pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...so by any chance is the market actually not completely able to provide us with all of our needs?

is 10 years a definition of soon?

Yes there are occasions that the market cannot provide us with our needs.thats why we have government supports.

No 10 years is not a definition of soon.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 4:19pm

schmittel wrote: »

Yes there are occasions that the market cannot provide us with our needs.thats why we have government supports.

No 10 years is not a definition of soon.

so can we please stop with all this the market nonsense, as i completely agree, the relationship between the private sector and the public sector, is in fact a symbiotic one, but are needed, equally, and both need to be flexible, to absorb shocks such as now

hometruths · 29-09-2020 4:22pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so can we please stop with all this the market nonsense, as i completely agree, the relationship between the private sector and the public sector, is in fact a symbiotic one, but are needed, equally, and both need to be flexible, to absorb shocks such as now

I have no idea the point you have been trying to make over the last few posts, and indeed it seems like you feel you have now made conclusively.

Can you spell it out to me? Preferably in one post.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 4:25pm

schmittel wrote: »

I have no idea the point you have been trying to make over the last few posts, and indeed it seems like you feel you have now made conclusively.

Can you spell it out to me? Preferably in one post.

there is an overwhelming belief in society, and ive noticed amongst some boards members, particularly on this forum, that truly believe in the nonsense of, 'the market knows best'!

hometruths · 29-09-2020 4:32pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

there is an overwhelming belief in society, and ive noticed amongst some boards members, particularly on this forum, that truly believe in the nonsense of, 'the market knows best'!

I am not sure how you proved that point after our protracted one on one.

My point on repossessions is that I believe Mary in number 22 Acacia Avenue should not have to pay John in No 24s mortgage as well as her own.

And I think paddy who has no house at all, should not be Paying John’s mortgage either. He’s under enough pressure as it is trying to get his own mortgage.

Nothing to do with market knows best.

Wanderer78 · 29-09-2020 4:34pm

schmittel wrote: »

I am not sure how you proved that point after our protracted one on one.

My point on repossessions is that I believe Mary in number 22 Acacia Avenue should not have to pay John in No 24s mortgage as well as her own.

And I think paddy who has no house at all, should not be Paying John’s mortgage either. He’s under enough pressure as it is trying to get his own mortgage.

Nothing to do with market knows best.

whos pay whos what where?

hometruths · 29-09-2020 4:38pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

whos pay whos what where?

Apologies, I’m probably as thick as mince, but I am just not following this train of conversation, so I give up!

Medium & Long Term Property Market Chat

Comments