Are we really back to this sh*t again?

J Mysterio

Yourself isit wrote: »

I agree. The banks are not lending hand over fist like they used to. Of course the new government interference doesnt help.

This reminds me of what an economist once said about London property prices. There are two protential catastrophes, either London is a bubble and there will be a big crash or it isn't a bubble and the future generations will be screwed.

Need to build houses, get the price down. There are too few, so prices are too high.

xckjoo

Glenster wrote: »

Making a distinction between value and price is pointless as value is a judgement that a person makes at a point in time, factoring in personal information that cant be quantified.

That is why you can estimate the value of something but cannot set the value of something definitively.

To say that an object has a single value to all people in all circumstances at a point in time is talking sh*t. All you can say is that "I reckon the value of this house to me/the man on the street/my ma is X".

To which I might say "Pay that amount then and prove it, otherwise f*ck off and stop talking ****"

.....

Not going down this road again. Read some of the previous pages.

sbsquarepants

donegaLroad wrote: »

unless you are paying for the house with cash on the day of purchasing, you are not buying the house for €450,000.

If you stay in the house for the term of the mortgage, you will be paying approx €730,000 over 30 years in total.

Considering you pay 10% deposit, then you borrow €400,000 @ 4% over 30 years, the total amount will be almost double after you finish paying.

The big question is, what will the house be worth after you pay that much for it, and what condition will it be in after 30 years.... and will the next buyers be paying in excess of €750,000 for it? How long will this cycle continue?

In Japan (possibly elsewhere too) they do 40 or 50 year multi generational mortgages. It's nothing short of mental!

re_shaft

whisky_galore wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/homeowner-renting-16-beds-in-three-rooms-for-up-to-445-each-1.2975618

Someone taking clear advantage of the current housing crisis....

Bloody hell.

16 young women have been living in three bedrooms.
....
Assuming 90 per cent occupancy throughout the year, the bunk beds would bring in more than €6,000 a month, or more than €72,000 a year.
....
She says she was allowed to wash one load of laundry a week, and showers were rationed.
She got half a shelf in a fridge and a small shelf space in the kitchen.
....
The former tenant, who says she was given two weeks’ notice to leave after she asked Mr McElwee to buy a frying pan so she could cook a steak, sought advice from Citizens Information.

Does anyone know what documentaries the owner Eamon McElwee has actually made? And does anyone know any reasons why I shouldn't think he's a cNut?

suicide_circus

re_shaft wrote: »

Bloody hell.




Does anyone know what documentaries the owner Eamon McElwee has actually made? And does anyone know any reasons why I shouldn't think he's a cNut?

Slumlord. Also enjoying artist tax exemption no doubt.

sbsquarepants

Glenster wrote: »

Making a distinction between value and price is pointless as value is a judgement that a person makes at a point in time, factoring in personal information that cant be quantified.

That is why you can estimate the value of something but cannot set the value of something definitively.

To say that an object has a single value to all people in all circumstances at a point in time is talking sh*t. All you can say is that "I reckon the value of this house to me/the man on the street/my ma is X".

To which I might say "Pay that amount then and prove it, otherwise f*ck off and stop talking ****"

I think people have an inbuilt "feeling" that stuff has a value - it's just a vague notion that we don't really think about and can't explain when pressed because it's not based on anything physical. It's like a type of cognitive dissonance, you feel something is the case but what you see doesn't quite agree with that feeling, so instead of changing what you think, you bend the facts to suit your feeling. We're all guilty of it at times.

One mans bargain is another mans daylight robbery. It's all subjective. People can and do use all sorts of tools to try and quantify and predict these things - but it's all just theoretical - there is only one acid test, turn it into cash and only then do you know what it's "really" worth.

As the saying goes - in theory there is no difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is.

Whatever theory you use to "value" whatever your selling is just a theory until you verify it in practice.

PhoenixParker

I wasn't worried until I read this line:

"It is a good opportunity for an investment," she said.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/hopefuls-queue-overnight-to-get-a-foot-in-the-door-35455683.html

Until now all the queues I've heard of and all the people I've head of in them have been families looking to buy a house they can live in for a long time. I thought this one off landlord investment ****e had been knocked on the head.

jimgoose

"MONORAIL!!" :pac:

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

re_shaft

PhoenixParker wrote: »

Until now all the queues I've heard of and all the people I've head of in them have been families looking to buy a house they can live in for a long time. I thought this one off landlord investment ****e had been knocked on the head.

Don't hate the player... If I had extra cash, and given the way things are in Dublin, I could easily see buying a place as an investment. (With all the caveats about good yield, decent priced place etc. etc.). Why wouldn't you? Interest rates are awful in the banks, Dublin is choc-a-bloc with no sign of the Government doing anything about it, so why not?

Note: I am never going to be in the position to do so.

Wanderer78

re_shaft wrote: »

Don't hate the player... If I had extra cash, and given the way things are in Dublin, I could easily see buying a place as an investment. (With all the caveats about good yield, decent priced place etc. etc.). Why wouldn't you? Interest rates are awful in the banks, Dublin is choc-a-bloc with no sign of the Government doing anything about it, so why not?

Note: I am never going to be in the position to do so.

i wouldnt actually, for various different reasons, one being, it truly doesnt help society as a whole

sbsquarepants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i wouldnt actually, for various different reasons, one being, it truly doesnt help society as a whole

How altruistic of you:rolleyes:

I have to admit, I sometimes do thing solely for my own benefit, or for my family. I feel as if it's asking too much of me to be responsible for the wellbeing of society!

jimgoose

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How altruistic of you:rolleyes:

I have to admit, I sometimes do thing solely for my own benefit, or for my family. I feel as if it's asking too much of me to be responsible for the wellbeing of society!

You monster! Even I turn on the water for the Wretched once a month or so.

re_shaft

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i wouldnt actually, for various different reasons, one being, it truly doesnt help society as a whole

It's an apartment in Dublin that I would be letting out. We're not talking about buying a shipment of drugs and weapons with my savings.

Wanderer78

sbsquarepants wrote: »

How altruistic of you:rolleyes:

I have to admit, I sometimes do thing solely for my own benefit, or for my family. I feel as if it's asking too much of me to be responsible for the wellbeing of society!

its actually not just being altruistic, its called being human and having an understanding of the needs of all humans.

i think noam chomskys use of the term 'atomisation' is perfect for this, we have been made beleive that acting in our own self interest is best for society as a whole, but in fact its the opposite. if we continue to think and bahve like this, we will continue to accelerate the demise of our planet and species.

i will agree with you that it is mainly the fault of our complex economic and financial systems that many behave in this manner, and we dont really know how to change this, but first we have to change the way we think and behave, in order to be able to change these system. sadly i think we re gonna have to endure a few more serious financial/economic crisis and possible a major war or two before that process begins.

again, i agree with chomsky, in that our economic and financial systems cause 'externalities' that have the potential to collapse our socioeconomic systems.

jimgoose

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its actually not just being altruistic, its called being human and having an understanding of the needs of all humans.

i think noam chomskys use of the term 'atomisation' is perfect for this...

I think that's just a restatement of the notion of the Tragedy of the Commons.

Wanderer78

jimgoose wrote: »

I think that's just a restatement of the notion of the Tragedy of the Commons.

i do agree with those that say, we re currently watching the failure of fundamental things such as neoliberlism and (not so) free market economics in regarding these issues. the only problem is, nobody really knows what to do next.

lawred2

PhoenixParker wrote: »

I wasn't worried until I read this line:



http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/hopefuls-queue-overnight-to-get-a-foot-in-the-door-35455683.html

Until now all the queues I've heard of and all the people I've head of in them have been families looking to buy a house they can live in for a long time. I thought this one off landlord investment ****e had been knocked on the head.

who do you think provides rental accommodation? The magic pixies?

jimgoose

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i do agree with those that say, we re currently watching the failure of fundamental things such as neoliberlism and (not so) free market economics in regarding these issues. the only problem is, nobody really knows what to do next.

I certainly don't. Is there anything at all to be said for donning a mohawk and marauding up-and-down the country with motorbikes and shotguns??

whisky_galore

re_shaft wrote: »

Bloody hell.

Does anyone know what documentaries the owner Eamon McElwee has actually made? And does anyone know any reasons why I shouldn't think he's a cNut?

Here we go...http://www.kidgloves.ie/ebiography.htm

LOL at his Linked in page..

Causes Eamon cares about:
Civil Rights and Social Action
Economic Empowerment
Human Rights
Poverty Alleviation

sbsquarepants

jimgoose wrote: »

You monster! Even I turn on the water for the Wretched once a month or so.

Rain, my good man. I provide buckets, nothing more:)

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its actually not just being altruistic, its called being human and having an understanding of the needs of all humans.

I'm intrigued, do you apply this human understanding to all your daily dealings or do you just limit it to investment property?

Wanderer78

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm intrigued, do you apply this human understanding to all your daily dealings or do you just limit it to investment property?

i try to at least, i spend a large amount of my time researching these matters, it has come clear to me particularly over the last few years, that something fundamental is going wrong regarding these issues. i do beleive ive found the culprits.

jimgoose

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i try to at least, i spend a large amount of my time researching these matters, it has come clear to me particularly over the last few years, that something fundamental is going wrong regarding these issues. i do beleive ive found the culprits.

Cool. Who are they? Let's run 'em down and flake shit out of 'em.

Wanderer78

jimgoose wrote: »

Cool. Who are they? Let's run 'em down and flake shit out of 'em.

ah all mainly lefties, but being a lefty thats not a problem to me:)

sbsquarepants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i try to at least, i spend a large amount of my time researching these matters, it has come clear to me particularly over the last few years, that something fundamental is going wrong regarding these issues. i do beleive ive found the culprits.

I bet you Nestlé are one of them, and the fúcking Vanderbilts (who probably own most of nestlé anyway!):mad:

I'm inclined to agree with you. It's a cruel world, extraordinarily unfair.

Where we'll probably differ, is I don't really think it could ever be any other way. You can't deny human nature, well you can but it will come back to bite you on the arse.

With the thought in my head that it's a cruel world, if I can turn a quick buck on a house or some handy investment and make my life and my kids lives that bit easier, I take that opportunity and chalk it down in the good luck column! My conscience remains crystal clear.

Wanderer78

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I bet you Nestlé are one of them, and the fúcking Vanderbilts (who probably own most of nestlé anyway!):mad:

I'm inclined to agree with you. It's a cruel world, extraordinarily unfair.

Where we'll probably differ, is I don't really think it could ever be any other way. You can't deny human nature, well you can but it will come back to bite you on the arse.

With the thought in my head that it's a cruel world, if I can turn a quick buck on a house or some handy investment and make my life and my kids lives that bit easier, I take that opportunity and chalk it down in the good luck column! My conscience remains crystal clear.

its a complicated one alright, if i was in your exact position, would i act any different than you, probably not! but im sure, its the fact that i virtually dont have any responsibilities in life, i.e. mortgage, kids etc, it allows me the freedom to think and behave in this manner. im starting to realise our economic and financial systems arent actually working for anybody, even the wealthy.

we re being almost forced to think and behave in this atomised way. it truly is a cruel world, but we have created these systems, so its up to us to change them. im finding our housing situation disturbing to watch, as others have said to me, many decades ago, we were not a particularly wealthy country, but we were still able to provide housing for most of our citizens. now we have become 'wealthy', somehow, we cant! doesnt wash with me, something is fundamentally wrong.

LuckyLloyd

whisky_galore wrote: »

Here we go...http://www.kidgloves.ie/ebiography.htm

LOL at his Linked in page..

Causes Eamon cares about:
Civil Rights and Social Action
Economic Empowerment
Human Rights
Poverty Alleviation

Jesus. What an absolute hypocrite.

suicide_circus

whisky_galore wrote: »

Here we go...http://www.kidgloves.ie/ebiography.htm

LOL at his Linked in page..

Causes Eamon cares about:
Civil Rights and Social Action
Economic Empowerment
Human Rights
Poverty Alleviation

Hahahahahaha the game's up Eamon

lawred2

that's the work of a sociopath

sbsquarepants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

it truly is a cruel world, but we have created these systems, so its up to us to change them. .

See therein lies the problem I believe.
If we started from scratch - we would just eventually arrive at more or less the same point. The really driven people would again accumulate the resources and the really smart ones would manipulate whatever new system arose to cream it for themselves.
Greed is endemic in us. Some more so than others, but in general it's in there - we just want "stuff" important stuff first, food, shelter and so on then bullshít stuff, bling and ipods etc.
But 99% always want more stuff. The more machievelian amongst us will always exploit that and eventually we end up back where we started.

whisky_galore

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Jesus. What an absolute hypocrite.

Poverty Alleviation...as in filling his own pockets.:rolleyes:

donegaLroad

sbsquarepants wrote: »

In Japan (possibly elsewhere too) they do 40 or 50 year multi generational mortgages. It's nothing short of mental!

part of the reason in Japan, is because there was a huge property bubble which burst in the 1990's.. and do you think the rest of the world learned from Japan's mistake?!

re_shaft

whisky_galore wrote: »

Poverty Alleviation...as in filling his own pockets.:rolleyes:

He's making sure he won't be in poverty. That's what he means.

Gavlor

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its actually not just being altruistic, its called being human and having an understanding of the needs of all humans.

i think noam chomskys use of the term 'atomisation' is perfect for this, we have been made beleive that acting in our own self interest is best for society as a whole, but in fact its the opposite. if we continue to think and bahve like this, we will continue to accelerate the demise of our planet and species.

i will agree with you that it is mainly the fault of our complex economic and financial systems that many behave in this manner, and we dont really know how to change this, but first we have to change the way we think and behave, in order to be able to change these system. sadly i think we re gonna have to endure a few more serious financial/economic crisis and possible a major war or two before that process begins.

again, i agree with chomsky, in that our economic and financial systems cause 'externalities' that have the potential to collapse our socioeconomic systems.

You make it sound like all of our issues stem from the current financial cycle whereas throughout history the same issues have been repeated time and time again even before the bartering system it was the strongest that prevailed and enjoyed the luxurious caves whilst the weak were out chasing dinasours in the snow.

It's life, it's human nature, it's not for changing.

JuliusCaesar

Ex governor of the Bank of England predicts another huge financial crisis.

xckjoo

Gavlor wrote: »

You make it sound like all of our issues stem from the current financial cycle whereas throughout history the same issues have been repeated time and time again even before the bartering system it was the strongest that prevailed and enjoyed the luxurious caves whilst the weak were out chasing dinasours in the snow.

It's life, it's human nature, it's not for changing.

That's the spirit! Just relax and accept it. No point struggling.

xckjoo

What you're failing to notice is that humans are a social creature. We don't work in isolation. Social ties are what brought us out of the caves and allowed us to do things like cook, farm, evolve intellectually, outlast Neanderthals, build cities, specialise workforces, and so on. You might think that we primarily behave in our own best interest but that's not really true. In fact people whos brains do work like that are seen as abnormal and classified as things like sociopathic.

We act somewhat in our own interest but it's not the primary force behind

You don't have to change human nature. You work with it. More people would be better off without this ****ty housing situation. At the moment there's a minority that are benefiting greatly, while everyone else is just trying to survive in it.

Wanderer78

What if these self interested ideas, systems and behavioral patterns lead to the total collapse of the ability of our planet to sustain all human life? is this ok in your mind?

xckjoo wrote: »

What you're failing to notice is that humans are a social creature. We don't work in isolation. Social ties are what brought us out of the caves and allowed us to do things like cook, farm, evolve intellectually, outlast Neanderthals, build cities, specialise workforces, and so on. You might think that we primarily behave in our own best interest but that's not really true. In fact people whos brains do work like that are seen as abnormal and classified as things like sociopathic.

We act somewhat in our own interest but it's not the primary force behind society.



You don't have to change human nature. You work with it. More people would be better off without this ****ty housing situation. At the moment there's a minority that are benefiting greatly, while everyone else is just trying to survive in it.

i personally believe our most common economic theory, i.e. neoclassical theory was originally developed by sociopaths and is currently being championed by people with the same or similar dispositions.

The Rape of Lucretia

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what if these self interested ideas, systems and behavioral patterns lead to the total collapse of the ability of our planet to sustain all human life? is this ok in your mind?

We arent so special that the universe needs us, so it is no harm really. And with nobody around to care, the point is academic.

Wanderer78

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

We arent so special that the universe needs us, so it is no harm really. And with nobody around to care, the point is academic.

really?

what if our current activities cause severe harm to your children and/or your grandchildren's future?

some believe humanity may not even make it into the next century such is the seriousness of our environmental problems

The Rape of Lucretia

Wanderer78 wrote: »

really?

what if our current activities cause severe harm to your children and/or your grandchildren's future?

some believe humanity may not even make it into the next century such is the seriousness of our environmental problems

Where's the problem with that ? Its just an alternate future. The universe will take its course, and a few carbon organism on one tiny rock in a tiny portion of it doesnt even amount to a hill of beans.

Wanderer78

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Where's the problem with that ? Its just an alternate future. The universe will take its course, and a few carbon organism on one tiny rock in a tiny portion of it doesnt even amount to a hill of beans.

are you ok with the idea that your kids/grand kids may struggle to survive largely due to our current activities?

of course all humans and our planet will eventually cease to exist at some stage but should we be trying to accelerate this ultimate faith?

Cameo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its actually not just being altruistic, its called being human and having an understanding of the needs of all humans.

By not agreeing with renting a gaff out?

But people need accommodation - all it is, is providing a service.

Now if it's substandard accommodation and/or the rent is ludicrously over-priced, your view applies, but if it is in good condition, clean, warm, dry, sufficiently spacious, with all the facilities needed, and the rent isn't stupidly high... what's the problem? How else are people going to be housed besides qualifying for local authority housing (not everyone can) or getting mortgage approval?

It's not like it has to be a case either of people looking after their own interests OR being part of a group and only looking out for that group/others... people can be a mixture of both.

xckjoo

Cameo wrote: »

By not agreeing with renting a gaff out?

But people need accommodation - all it is, is providing a service.

Now if it's substandard accommodation and/or the rent is ludicrously over-priced, your view applies, but if it is in good condition, clean, warm, dry, sufficiently spacious, with all the facilities needed, and the rent isn't stupidly high... what's the problem? How else are people going to be housed besides qualifying for local authority housing (not everyone can) or getting mortgage approval?

It's not like it has to be a case either of people looking after their own interests OR being part of a group and only looking out for that group/others... people can be a mixture of both.

The problem is that people buying investment properties to rent out are taking properties that someone else might buy and live in. They also tend to have deeper pockets that home buyers (particularly when you look at investment groups that get into the housing market) so push up prices for everyone or sit on derelict sites.

I'm not saying that we should ban people from buying to let, but things should be biased in favour of people buying a home to live in.

sbsquarepants

xckjoo wrote: »

The problem is that people buying investment properties to rent out are taking properties that someone else might buy and live in. They also tend to have deeper pockets that home buyers (particularly when you look at investment groups that get into the housing market) so push up prices for everyone or sit on derelict sites.

I'm not saying that we should ban people from buying to let, but things should be biased in favour of people buying a home to live in.

That's not a problem at all - people buying rental properties generally speaking want someone to live in it. Usually someone who is not in a position to buy the house themselves.

Without rental properties, where exactly are people supposed to live until they are in a position to buy a house?

xckjoo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's not a problem at all - people buying rental properties generally speaking want someone to live in it. Usually someone who is not in a position to buy the house themselves.

Without rental properties, where exactly are people supposed to live until they are in a position to buy a house?

But part of the reason the prices are so high is because people are buying to let. There's a lot of people out there looking to buy, but can't find a place quite within their financial reach or they didn't queue early enough or something. These people are then stuck in rented accommodation while they keep looking, which increases demand for rental accommodation, which increases demand for buy-to-let properties, which continues the cycle. If we could take those people (the ones that want to buy and aren't going to default on a reasonable mortgage) out of the rental cycle, then that frees up plenty of existing rental properties.

It's not a simple problem and I'm not saying I have the solution, but the current system isn't setting us up for much of a future beyond another cycle of defaults and astronomical mortgages.

lawred2

xckjoo wrote: »

But part of the reason the prices are so high is because people are buying to let. There's a lot of people out there looking to buy, but can't find a place quite within their financial reach or they didn't queue early enough or something. These people are then stuck in rented accommodation while they keep looking, which increases demand for rental accommodation, which increases demand for buy-to-let properties, which continues the cycle. If we could take those people (the ones that want to buy and aren't going to default on a reasonable mortgage) out of the rental cycle, then that frees up plenty of existing rental properties.

It's not a simple problem and I'm not saying I have the solution, but the current system isn't setting us up for much of a future beyond another cycle of defaults and astronomical mortgages.

?

if they are taking up properties that investors would have been renting then how does that free up the overall rental stock?

xckjoo

lawred2 wrote: »

?

if they are taking up properties that investors would have been renting then how does that free up the overall rental stock?

Because those potential buyers have to live somewhere and don't come from nowhere. They're already renting or will have to rent if they can't afford to buy.

lawred2

xckjoo wrote: »

Because those potential buyers have to live somewhere and don't come from nowhere. They're already renting or will have to rent if they can't afford to buy.

sure but instead of a property being occupied by a tenant it's now occupied by an owner

So you've lost one property which would have been added to the rental market.. In effect doing nothing to help the rental situation.

xckjoo

lawred2 wrote: »

sure but instead of a property being occupied by a tenant it's now occupied by an owner

So you've lost one property which would have been added to the rental market.. In effect doing nothing to help the rental situation.

No you've taken one renter out of the market and vacated a rental property so you've a gain of one rental property. If you just add another rental property you have no change.

e.g. Person A renting and looking to buy while Person B is moving out for the first time and looking to rent. Scenario 1: New house bought to rent, Person B moves in and rents, Person A stay put. Scenario 2: Person A buys and moves in, Person B moves into their old rental property. So in Scenario A you've double the number of renters while in Scenario B you've kept it steady, despite the new person entering the market. Simplistic example I know, but the you get the idea.