Softening house market?

Sham might be a strong word. I prefer gimmick.

I do think it's a step in the right direction of transparent bidding processes, but it's handled very poorly.

In fairness, you can remove both of those supports over a long term IF you have something in place to replace them. Without going near the ins and outs of problem tenants (of whom there are a hell of a lot less than many would think) paying private landlords to house social tenants isn't a good place to be or a good long term use of state monies. As stated however it would take an almightly turn around in housing policy to see those being removed.

As for developers sitting on developments they have received planning on - to be fair construction and labour costs, while having lowered a bit of late are still incredibly high - I assume high enough that building at this time of massive uncertainty doesn't make fiscal sense to them.

I've wondered about this myself. There was a sharp fall in the markets in early 2020 due to uncertainty about the pestilence. It went away when the lockdowns started and the money printing really got underway. What I'd love to know, and we never shall, is what would have happened without the torrent of funny money.

As a general point, it seems to me that little of the Western model of neoliberalism / globalism seems especially sustainable. Even without the very questionable financial side of things, the damage to the environment alone is ruinous, and I don't have any faith that driving Teslas and eating crickets is a solution.

I think the constant requirement for "growth" or "profits" is the key issue and I'd agree with you on that general comment.

There are a hell of a lot of jobs nowadays that don't necessarily produce anything of "value" either - I'd be concerned about this angle but look - that's got little to do with housing .

Not at all. That would be a bit like someone saying in 2008 that there would be no recession even if everyone in construction lost their jobs because loads of people worked in other industries.

It's an analogy. You appear to be basically saying that if the supports had not been put in at that time, that the housing market would still be the same today. That is not plausible.

Even over in the US. Printed loads of money. Interest rates back down to zero. Stimulus cheques poured into the stock market and the combination drove the markets up massively. US is putting rates back up again and we are seeing tech companies bringing in hiring freezes. Growth companies soar during times of low interest rates. Because there is very little discounting for all those future cash flows.

No goverment supports here would have meant a lot of people losing their jobs. Not being able to afford rent/mortgages. Not buying luxuries and hence more job losses. Housing would have decreased rather than increased.

There were two types of supports. PUP to the person, and supports to employers.

It would not be correct to assume that everyone who is buying a house now, who did not receive PUP and whose employer did not receive any supports, would have kept their job. In the same way as how non-Construction workers lost their jobs when construction crashed in the last recession.

As already pointed out in the post - Global tech are implementing freezes. Part of this is due to rising rates over in the US. Something which was just starting to happen, but was reversed when the pandemic came in. If you remember (or even look at a graph), markets around the world crashed fairly rapidly and only recovered rapidly when money got pumped back in. Respected economists were advising people not to "buy the dip" expecting a quick recovery. They were wrong, but only because of government intervention

I think you are mistaken here. I work doing bookkeeping and accounts. Every one of my clients across a range of sectors availed of TWSS and/or EWSS. Some of the employees have since bought houses.

There is a perception that only businesses that were closed for prolonged periods or involved in hospitality etc availed of these schemes. This is not the case at all. For example one of my clients is a healthcare provider.

A quick google turned up a document published by Revenue listing employers who received payments under TWSS. It is over 2,500 pages long. Do you really think none of those employees have bought houses in the last 2.5 years?

Pretty sure banks weren't giving mortgages to employees whose employers were availing of government support (or had done in the previous 6 months?)

Imagine if Ireland had invested in non-fossil fuel power stations back in the 90s. We could have a few modern nuclear power plants up and running by now. However, the boomers wanted pensions, and we saw yesterday with the decision on the retirement age, they most certainly will be cashing them in...

Regarding populism, I feel that there is a very great danger that worsening conditions could leave to either far-left or far-right extremism taking root in Europe. Ireland seems more likely to go the way of the former, but that may not be so elsewhere in Europe.

I don't feel especially optimistic about the future...

Those same boomers went on a mad spree of building houses and they inherited all their parents picturesque houses in the countryside that they're now just keeping empty and using as holiday homes. Then they have the gall to try and prevent the generation after them from building any new houses in the countryside citing environmental concerns. Yep that generation well and truly pulled the ladder up behind them.

Should be no issue to the the "work from home brigade" as long as theres good broadband.

The boomer generation has caused a lot of problems in the West, and I don't think that that is even a controversial thing to say. It doesn't mean that all boomers are "bad", but the decisions made as a result of their voting and under their tenure have left a lot of problems that younger generations now have to deal with.