Should the government apologize to young people in rented accomodation

touts

realitykeeper wrote: »

Five minutes - if they thought it was in their interests.

So do you plan to frog march 50,000 people into some showtrial (probably set up in Croke Park as that's the only venue large enough to accommodate that crowd) and in 5 minutes condemn them all, seize everything they own and give it all to some "young person" loyal to your philosophy. That certainly would be the Socialist thing to do. Or do you just plan to have some supreme leader pass the law and then send in jackbooted stormtroopers in the middle of the night to clear the estates and round up the previous owners. Given that you are also proposing to leave them saddled with the debt perhaps we could sew a yellow euro symbol into their cloths. That would be the National Socialist thing to do. So which are you? Socialist or National Socialist?

kippy

realitykeeper wrote: »

I have resolved to try be a bit more moderate both in my arguments and tone, so here goes. To take your first point, the answer is yes because the price of houses would plummet to within reach of the first timers if all were vacated by the defaulters and flogged for what the market would offer.

Regarding rental stock: Many of the first timers presently rent so when they vacate the rental properties to become buyers, a chunk of the necessary rental property would become available. The rest could do anything from soaking up the remainder of the rental properties (including ghost estates in Leitrim) to moving back in with their Mammies.

As for speculating: There is nothing to stop someone from speculating and making huge profits but that would only be an issue for people who are prone to jealousy. The jealous people could get professional help to conquer their jealousy issues. Problem solved.

Hmmm....why dont said FTB's head for Leitrim or their mammies?

PopePalpatine

Jawgap wrote: »

So you think it's a good idea to toss 300,000 people out of their homes!

The social disruption alone - as people move to find affordable housing, or seek income supports etc would wreck the country!

Sure that's what workhouses and special camps are for! :rolleyes:

realitykeeper

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Sure that's what workhouses and special camps are for! :rolleyes:

Precisely. Looking after the evicted by direct provision would have been so much cheaper than propping up the banks. A few marquis in a big field and soup served from tureens would have sufficed.

PopePalpatine

Great, I await the inevitable abuse scandal if this is outsourced to the RCC or the likes of G4S.

c montgomery

realitykeeper wrote: »

You obviously didn`t read the previous thread. I am all in favour of the law of supply and demand, I am opposed to protectionism.

If your in favour of supply and demand what's your problem with the rental market, it's the simplest example of supply and demand, just cause your caught with high rents why should the government apologise
You call people who bought in the boom stupid, maybe your stupid for paying these high rents.

ezra_pound

realitykeeper wrote: »

Precisely. Looking after the evicted by direct provision would have been so much cheaper than propping up the banks. A few marquis in a big field and soup served from tureens would have sufficed.

I think you completely misunderstand the nature of the Irish financial crisis 2008 - 2011, and the makeup of the bad loans which necessitated the bailouts.

The principal black holes that emerged were highly leveraged developer loans, not mortgage arrears. For instance the book value of the nama loans is around 80 billion.

In 2011 total residential mortgage arrears reached about 1 billion euro.

Also if the banks repossess all of these properties and sold them during the 2010- 2012 period, there'd have been a crystallisation of losses on their books at bottom market levels.

c montgomery

realitykeeper wrote: »

Precisely. Looking after the evicted by direct provision would have been so much cheaper than propping up the banks. A few marquis in a big field and soup served from tureens would have sufficed.

Maybe you could go live in one of these tents if your rent is too high

vandriver

Would the French noblemen serve the soup ?

zielarz

realitykeeper, these people have no idea what you're talking about.. they're confusing credit fueled property bubble with an ordinary supply and demand.. they believe it's not their reponsibility they bought at the top and somebody else should pay for the excessive risk they took. They're accusing you of being socialist while that's exactly what they stand for.

realitykeeper

c montgomery wrote: »

If your in favour of supply and demand what's your problem with the rental market, it's the simplest example of supply and demand, just cause your caught with high rents why should the government apologise
You call people who bought in the boom stupid, maybe your stupid for paying these high rents.

You obviously didn`t read the previous thread. Protectionism is distorting the market. The government should stop interfering with the law of supply and demand.

realitykeeper

ezra_pound wrote: »

Also if the banks repossess all of these properties and sold them during the 2010- 2012 period, there'd have been a crystallisation of losses on their books at bottom market levels.

That would have been a good thing. The losses should be crystallized in their name and not the taxpayers. The bankers were just as foolish as the defaulters. By taking the losses the government is depriving the foolish bankers and defaulters of the opportunity to learn.

It will be wonderful when the next recession comes and the government is expected to continue paying for what it has borrowed. Then things will get interesting.

aido79

realitykeeper wrote: »

That would have been a good thing. The losses should be crystallized in their name and not the taxpayers. The bankers were just as foolish as the defaulters. By taking the losses the government is depriving the foolish bankers and defaulters of the opportunity to learn.

It will be wonderful when the next recession comes and the government is expected to continue paying for what it has borrowed. Then things will get interesting.

You still haven't come up with a realistic solution. I stopped taking you serious anyway when you said that the government should bail Sean Quinn out.

Susandublin

Sounds like Sinn Fein economics - unfortunately there are consequences to actions. If the government made every decision to assist the poorest then the country would fail. No apology is required by the government - the jokers before them destroyed the economy and they are making the hard decisions to rebuild and fix.
Nobody benefits by evicting people from their homes - it's not just an economic question, it's a social one too.
Totally agree, more supply is needed but this will come in time.

realitykeeper

Susandublin wrote: »

Sounds like Sinn Fein economics - unfortunately there are consequences to actions. If the government made every decision to assist the poorest then the country would fail.
... more supply is needed but this will come in time.

The Sinn Fein economics is coming from you not from me. The poorest are the foolish people who over borrowed, got into negative equity and started defaulting. The government did make the decision to bail out the poorest (those in default) which is why the country will fail when the 1st world farce that is QE economics comes to its inevitable conclusion.

No need for more supply, there are hundreds of thousands of mortgages in default. If they can`t pay, those properties should be flogged at market prices and this will enable first timers to get on the property ladder at a reasonable price. Nobody benefits if the first timers have to borrow a lot, that will only worsen the next recession.

Don`t misunderstand me, defaulters do not have a monopoly on stupidity. There are plenty of first timers who will borrow as much as they can with the 10 % deposit mortgage they can access, and they will regret it.

c montgomery

realitykeeper wrote: »

You obviously didn`t read the previous thread. Protectionism is distorting the market. The government should stop interfering with the law of supply and demand.

No I didn't read a previous thread, this one was enough. Your opinions demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge to real world economics and show a complete lack of empathy for others.
I would have said troll only for the fact that your so persistent in your deluded argument that I believe you to be misguided and misinformed rather than trying to wind people up.

Best of luck to you, sounds like you'll need it!

realitykeeper

c montgomery wrote: »

Best of luck to you, sounds like you'll need it!

The sentiment is mutual, I can assure you.

c montgomery

realitykeeper wrote: »

The sentiment is mutual, I can assure you.

c montgomery

realitykeeper wrote: »

Aha! So that`s who put Gom in montgomery!

Haha, that's actually funny

Maybe you should stick to the jokes, at least people would laugh at you for the right reason

realitykeeper

c montgomery wrote: »

Haha, that's actually funny

Maybe you should stick to the jokes, at least people would laugh at you for the right reason

Correction: People laugh with me. They laugh at you.

c montgomery

realitykeeper wrote: »

Correction: People laugh with me. They laugh at you.

Ouch, what a burn

zielarz

c montgomery wrote: »

Your opinions demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge to real world economics and show a complete lack of empathy for others.

What about your empathy for renters?

K-9

c montgomery wrote: »

No I didn't read a previous thread, this one was enough. Your opinions demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge to real world economics and show a complete lack of empathy for others.
I would have said troll only for the fact that your so persistent in your deluded argument that I believe you to be misguided and misinformed rather than trying to wind people up.

Best of luck to you, sounds like you'll need it!

realitykeeper wrote: »

The sentiment is mutual, I can assure you.

c montgomery wrote: »

c montgomery wrote: »

Haha, that's actually funny

Maybe you should stick to the jokes, at least people would laugh at you for the right reason

realitykeeper wrote: »

Correction: People laugh with me. They laugh at you.

c montgomery wrote: »

Ouch, what a burn

Mod:

Errr, cut it out please and back to discussing the topic![/b]

Voltex

zielarz wrote: »

realitykeeper, these people have no idea what you're talking about.. they're confusing credit fueled property bubble with an ordinary supply and demand.. they believe it's not their reponsibility they bought at the top and somebody else should pay for the excessive risk they took. They're accusing you of being socialist while that's exactly what they stand for.

Id disagree with your assessment of OP's economic position. Id describe it as a strange hybrid- a type of a hyper-neocapatilistic free-market centrally planned socialism.

Personally I'm all for the free market..Menger, Mises, Hayek and Friedman, Iv probably cited them all at some point, but even they would acknowledge the role of the State in providing stability, fairness and security to everyone.
There is also the concept of the neighbourhood effect that Friedman discusses in Capitalism and Freedom...maybe worth looking into before wholesale condemnation of all those who bought at the top of the market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

zielarz

Voltex wrote: »

Personally I'm all for the free market..Menger, Mises, Hayek and Friedman, Iv probably cited them all at some point, but even they would acknowledge the role of the State in providing stability, fairness and security to everyone.
There is also the concept of the neighbourhood effect that Friedman discusses in Capitalism and Freedom...maybe worth looking into before wholesale condemnation of all those who bought at the top of the market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Freedom

Absolutely. But state crossed the line by stepping in and saving banks. This was anti-free market move and normally would be considered as unfair practice. I believe that's what the OP is talking about.

The only case government is allowed to step in is when the other parties would be all worse off if they didn't. This isn't the case here since the savers( potential property buyers) would be better off if the property marked collapsed even more than it did. We would have seen even greater bargains and the rents wouldn't have came back that fast.

Voltex

zielarz wrote: »

Absolutely. But state crossed the line by stepping in and saving banks. This was anti-free market move and normally would be considered as unfair practice. I believe that's what the OP is talking about.

The only case government is allowed to step in is when the other parties would be all worse off if they didn't. This isn't the case here since the savers( potential property buyers) would be better off if the property marked collapsed even more than it did. We would have seen even greater bargains and the rents wouldn't have came back that fast.

I accept nearly everything you say here..only problem is that it is the role of the State to ensure stability, security and fairness (or justice). Had the state let any of the banks fail (or had implied they would) we would have had a run on all the banks, with the fractional reserve system we use most wouldn't have got their money back...so capital controls would have been introduced. TBH..the scenario is so nightmarish its just not worth going into.

So all in all the Government fulfilled its obligations in terms of ensuring stability and security (security of property rights). I do accept that strictly speaking in the free market spirit they should have allowed the insolvent institutions fail, but the consequences of such action would have been a lot worse for everyone else.

realitykeeper

Voltex wrote: »

Id disagree with your assessment of OP's economic position. Id describe it as a strange hybrid- a type of a hyper-neocapatilistic free-market centrally planned socialism.

As OP I think I can settle the matter. zielar is absolutely correct but I am afraid you got it completely wrong Voltex. Perhaps you could tell me how you think I advocate central planning or socialism so I can pin point exactly where you went wrong.

realitykeeper

Voltex wrote: »

I accept nearly everything you say here..only problem is that it is the role of the State to ensure stability, security and fairness (or justice). Had the state let any of the banks fail (or had implied they would) we would have had a run on all the banks, with the fractional reserve system we use most wouldn't have got their money back...so capital controls would have been introduced. TBH..the scenario is so nightmarish its just not worth going into.

So all in all the Government fulfilled its obligations in terms of ensuring stability and security (security of property rights). I do accept that strictly speaking in the free market spirit they should have allowed the insolvent institutions fail, but the consequences of such action would have been a lot worse for everyone else.

The rights and wrongs of bailing out the banks have been debated ad nauseam. Needless to say, I was always opposed to it.

It will be interesting to compare the Irish and Icelandic economies in the future. The next recession will finally settle the question of which policy was correct.

chopper6

realitykeeper wrote: »

The rights and wrongs of bailing out the banks have been debated ad nauseam. Needless to say, I was always opposed to it.

It will be interesting to compare the Irish and Icelandic economies in the future. The next recession will finally settle the question of which policy was correct.

What do you think would happen *if* the Government apologised to young people in rented accomadation?

Would they be so grateful that they'd..do what exactly?

realitykeeper

chopper6 wrote: »

What do you think would happen *if* the Government apologised to young people in rented accomadation?

Would they be so grateful that they'd..do what exactly?

The government is pursuing a policy which favors the irresponsibly indebted to the detriment of responsible young savers. This is morally reprehensible. The first step in righting any wrong is to admit it and then to apologize for it.

This first step, would offer a spark of hope to legions of young enslaved people. Through their labour, the young are taxed to pay other peoples mortgages. After paying for other peoples mortgages, they are taxed to pay interest on government borrowings. To add injury to insult, these government borrowings are then used to inflate the rents and house prices which young people must pay.

This government must have a pathological hatred of the post celtic tiger generation.

realitykeeper

catbear wrote: »

I remember 100% mortgage being snapped up by people on temp contracts but don't remember a gun been put to their heads.
I also remember in the same ads for these mortgages that they monatered by the financial regulator which we later found out was a fantesy.
Blame is 50/50.

How is any of this the fault of young people who did not borrow like the celtic tiger cubs and who were not paid to regulate the banking sector. Why should the young be asked to pay other peoples mortgages when the young are 100% blame free.

realitykeeper

kippy wrote: »

Hmmm....why dont said FTB's head for Leitrim or their mammies?

The FTBs did not borrow foolishly. The foolish did. So to the foolish, I say this: To hell or to Leitrim (or back to your Mammies with you.)

Ave Sodalis

realitykeeper wrote: »

This first step, would offer a spark of hope to legions of young enslaved people. Through their labour, the young are taxed to pay other peoples mortgages. After paying for other peoples mortgages, they are taxed to pay interest on government borrowings. To add injury to insult, these government borrowings are then used to inflate the rents and house prices which young people must pay.

This government must have a pathological hatred of all young people.

OP, as one of these young people, I think the post is a load of nonsense. Would you like to explain how people buying houses knew the economy would collapse? Did they develop some sort of fortune telling powers that warned them? Baring in mind, most people don't have a particularly good understanding of how banks and stuff work. They want a house, therefore need a morgage. They go with the best deal in that regard. I very much doubt many people knew that everything would go belly up unless they kept themselves very current (and being realistic, how many did that? How many even do it now?) or they could predict the future.

realitykeeper

sup_dude wrote: »

OP, as one of these young people, I think the post is a load of nonsense. Would you like to explain how people buying houses knew the economy would collapse? Did they develop some sort of fortune telling powers that warned them? Baring in mind, most people don't have a particularly good understanding of how banks and stuff work. They want a house, therefore need a morgage. They go with the best deal in that regard. I very much doubt many people knew that everything would go belly up unless they kept themselves very current (and being realistic, how many did that? How many even do it now?) or they could predict the future.

You are right that many of the celtic tiger cubs did not know. But, they should have made it their business to know. After all, taking on a mortgage is a big decision and it can take decades to pay off. Consequently, the "not knowing" when they should have known is the reason they were foolish.

I also said that the defaulters do not have a monopoly on stupidity. Even now, there are plenty of young first time buyers who will borrow as much as they can with the 10% deposit they are allowed. This competing is only driving up house prices and forcing young people to borrow more and more. Besides, if it were not for government interference, house prices would have fallen so low you could almost buy a house outright for the cost of your 10% deposit.

The government desperately needs suckers to keep borrowing so they can re blow the bubble economy.

Voltex

realitykeeper wrote: »

The rights and wrongs of bailing out the banks have been debated ad nauseam. Needless to say, I was always opposed to it.

It will be interesting to compare the Irish and Icelandic economies in the future. The next recession will finally settle the question of which policy was correct.

Conveniently ignoring Argentina's plight I see!!

Voltex

realitykeeper wrote: »

You are right that many of the celtic tiger cubs did not know. But, they should have made it their business to know. After all, taking on a mortgage is a big decision and it can take decades to pay off. Consequently, the "not knowing" when they should have known is the reason they were foolish.

I also said that the defaulters do not have a monopoly on stupidity. Even now, there are plenty of young first time buyers who will borrow as much as they can with the 10% deposit they are allowed. This competing is only driving up house prices and forcing young people to borrow more and more. Besides, if it were not for government interference, house prices would have fallen so low you could almost buy a house outright for the cost of your 10% deposit.

The government desperately needs suckers to keep borrowing so they can re blow the bubble economy.

You know that Hayek once said that the constructions of socialist systems (centrally planned) are generally developed by those who think they know the best way to develop and regulate a social system. It is what he referred to as a fatal conceit....hence my view that your ****e talking OP.

I love to be challenged on my opinions and views..its how I (we) learn and mature. I love being challenged to think and construct a logical, critically reasoned argument...I hate being proved wrong...but I will without hesitation accept when I am.

OP I think your argument held validity for a time..but your last series of posts are just plain ridiculous.

aido79

zielarz wrote: »

What about your empathy for renters?

This thread is about empathy for renters..read the title

T-K-O

OP, get off that soap box, with an attitude like that you are most definitely a child of the tiger.

realitykeeper

aido79 wrote: »

This thread is about empathy for renters..read the title

What do you mean. The title is empathetic to renters. Do you even know what the word empathy means?

realitykeeper

Voltex wrote: »

OP I think your argument held validity for a time..but your last series of posts are just plain ridiculous.

You highlighted my quote where I said:

This competing is only driving up house prices and forcing young people to borrow more and more.

How can you take issue with this. It is insane having a lot of people bidding house prices higher like this. They are literally talking themselves into a lifetime of debt. And, when the next recession comes and they lose their jobs and start defaulting, how is the government going to save them.

Would the troika return when this cycle of debt and default becomes such an obvious bottomless pit. Would the country want them to return. People, banks, developers and countries that default should never be bailed out. In the long term it only makes thing worse.

realitykeeper

Voltex wrote: »

Conveniently ignoring Argentina's plight I see!!

Argentina`s debt crisis was different to Iceland`s in that it was more to do with government borrowing (especially during the military dictatorship) and the Icelandic crisis was to do with not bailing out private banks.

DirtyDiesels

realitykeeper wrote: »

It will please you to know I understand the sequence of events perfectly.

There are 300,000 mortgages in arrears in this country. Now, instead of the government borrowing billions in our name and using the money to do all kinds of shady deals to transfer the personal debt of the defaulters onto the shoulders of the first time buyers, here is what I suggest:

Flog the 300,000 properties in mortgage arrears on the open market for whatever price the market will support. The first time buyers will find the cost of buying a house will suddenly be within their grasp. In fact, the first time buyers will easily be able to out bid the defaulters in an open unprotected market because the defaulters will still have the balance on their old mortgage to pay.

That of course is assuming the government does not intend to tax the younger generation to pay other people`s mortgages.

obviously your a first time buyer....thats very biased attitude to say the least.

sydthebeat

DirtyDiesels wrote: »

obviously your a first time buyer....thats very biased attitude to say the least.

With absolutely no idea on the value of the property market.

Dublin is in a bubble because of a lack of supply. In the rest of the country it's possible to purchase the majority of houses for less than the construction costs.

If the op wants to petition for lower house prices he needs to petition for less regulation, less tax application on dwellings (over 50% of the cost of a new build goes to government in the form of direct and indirect taxes), less development contributions to local authorities.

Then when he had done that he needs to show where this sort fall in central revenue will be made back up to run the country.

But hey, economics have never been sinn feins strong point. ......

_Brian

realitykeeper wrote: »

It will please you to know I understand the sequence of events perfectly.

There are 300,000 mortgages in arrears in this country. Now, instead of the government borrowing billions in our name and using the money to do all kinds of shady deals to transfer the personal debt of the defaulters onto the shoulders of the first time buyers, here is what I suggest:

Flog the 300,000 properties in mortgage arrears on the open market for whatever price the market will support. The first time buyers will find the cost of buying a house will suddenly be within their grasp. In fact, the first time buyers will easily be able to out bid the defaulters in an open unprotected market because the defaulters will still have the balance on their old mortgage to pay.

That of course is assuming the government does not intend to tax the younger generation to pay other people`s mortgages.

Apart from your juvinile I'll informed view of the market. Your repeated insulting and name calling just mean that I couldn't be arsed to read the reams of drivel your typing out.
The mere fact that your looking for pity and an apology reflects your juvinile immature position.

Renting before you buy is a fairly standard position.
I could equally argue that you should easily be able to afford a property given te position of the market. Your probably an inept underachiever not earning enough to be a grown up and buy a property - but I wouldn't stoop to such low descriptions.

Bide your time, save and you'll buy a property in due time. It's no fault of anyone else and you not anyone else deserves an apology over the current situation.

ezra_pound

OK first off, as discussed several times, there is nowhere near 300,000 mortgages in arrears. The op refuses to acknowledge this REALITY.

secondly, banks cannot flog off other people's property, they have to repossess that property first and that takes time and money and lawyers.

Thirdly, even if the banks did this, it is not in their interest to flood the property market. If for some reason they were compelled to repossess all properties in arrears, and were then successful in doing so, they would instead slowly release the stock onto the market

realitykeeper

sydthebeat wrote: »

With absolutely no idea on the value of the property market.

Dublin is in a bubble because of a lack of supply.

There are plenty of houses in Dublin, its just that a lot of them are occupied by defaulters.

sydthebeat

realitykeeper wrote: »

There are plenty of houses in Dublin, its just that a lot of them are occupied by defaulters.

And back on planet earth, the sky is blue. .....

ezra_pound

OK first off, as discussed several times, there is nowhere near 300,000 mortgages in arrears. The op refuses to acknowledge this REALITY.

secondly, banks cannot flog off other people's property, they have to repossess that property first and that takes time and money and lawyers.

Thirdly, even if the banks did this, it is not in their interest to flood the property market. If for some reason they were compelled to repossess all properties in arrears, and were then successful in doing so, they would instead slowly release the stock onto the market.

realitykeeper

ezra_pound wrote: »

Thirdly, even if the banks did this, it is not in their interest to flood the property market.

The banks would have no choice in the matter if the state had not bailed them out. Why should the taxpayer have to pay the banks losses. And, in the case of first time buyers, why should they be faced with having to pay for other people`s mortgages and higher rent, as well as having to bail out the banks.

The government can only get away with playing one generation off against another as long as it can borrow money. The next recession may well bring about an impasse the government will not be able to borrow its way out of.

ezra_pound

realitykeeper wrote: »

There are plenty of houses in Dublin, its just that a lot of them are occupied by defaulters.

This is absolute rubbish.

OP change your user name to Dreamkeeper.