Private rents unaffordable for families in most English Boroughs

[Cyclone]

Yes, they should accept a lower quality of life, because it would be really sad if landlords, after profiting vastly from the ridiculous increases in the value of their properties, should now be expeted to absorb any of the losses now the bubble has burst.

Expectations have little to do with it. It's a free market. If there were downward pressures on pricing then it would go down. If there aren't (ie people can still afford it) then it won't.

 

It should be enshrined in the constitution that the world owes them a living and tenants be forced to keep on paying inflated property bubble rents, long after the bubble has burst. Who do these people think they are expecting reasonable housing for a qyarter or a third of their income? Don't they know houses only exist for landlords to get rich off them?

I think you're getting all emotional about what is a business (for the landlord). Nobody owes them a living, and nobody is magically propping up the prices to provide it, it's just market forces.

[donkey]

Expectations have little to do with it. It's a free market. If there were downward pressures on pricing then it would go down. If there aren't (ie people can still afford it) then it won't.

 

If the profit motive alone is good enough to regulate the supply and demand of one of the basic neccessities for survival, then why not go the whole hog?

 

Why not sell all the resevoirs and allow the unregulated market to set the price for water as well? The scope for appreciation of stock would be phenomenal in times of drought!

 

 

I think you're getting all emotional about what is a business (for the landlord).

 

Saying something is just business does not put it above moral or political question. The heroin trade is just business. Human trafficking is driven by market forces.

 

The rapidly widening gap between the haves and the have nots is as a result of allowing 'market forces' to set the agenda. Regulation is vetoed according to how many vested interests will loose out, and how powerful they are. This is strongly reflected in the housing 'market.'

 

 

Nobody owes them a living, and nobody is magically propping up the prices to provide it, it's just market forces.

 

No, it isn't magic. The prices are being propped up due to a scarcity of housing. The street is not a good alternative to high rent. For prices to come down there would have to be more housing. I can't see 'the market' being keen to provide masses of affordable housing, thus pushing down prices. That is why governments intervene using public money at times of crisis.

 

There is a massive ideological inconsistancy in using public money to provide affordable housing, then allowing private profit to push prices up until, once again, building stops because new houses are no longer profitable, because few people can afford them. If 'the market' were really the driving force behind housing provision, there would be shanty towns springing up all over the place.

 

The market can not and does not adequately provide for housing needs because it's chief motivation is profit, not the provision of housing. The belief that housing needs are met by 'the market' is a fallacy belied by the simple fact that without the vast amounts of subsidised housing built after the war, we would now have chronic homelessness and poverty caused by the shortfall of supply over demand - a thing which can work in favour of 'the market.'

[chem1st]

Expectations have little to do with it. It's a free market. If there were downward pressures on pricing then it would go down. If there aren't (ie people can still afford it) then it won't.

I think you're getting all emotional about what is a business (for the landlord). Nobody owes them a living, and nobody is magically propping up the prices to provide it, it's just market forces.

 

Do you know what a free-market is?

[TeaFan]

If the profit motive alone is good enough to regulate the supply and demand of one of the basic neccessities for survival, then why not go the whole hog?

 

Why not sell all the resevoirs and allow the unregulated market to set the price for water as well? The scope for appreciation of stock would be phenomenal in times of drought!

 

Saying something is just business does not put it above moral or political question. The heroin trade is just business. Human trafficking is driven by market forces.

 

The rapidly widening gap between the haves and the have nots is as a result of allowing 'market forces' to set the agenda. Regulation is vetoed according to how many vested interests will loose out, and how powerful they are. This is strongly reflected in the housing 'market.'

 

 

 

 

No, it isn't magic. The prices are being propped up due to a scarcity of housing. The street is not a good alternative to high rent. For prices to come down there would have to be more housing. I can't see 'the market' being keen to provide masses of affordable housing, thus pushing down prices. That is why governments intervene using public money at times of crisis.

 

There is a massive ideological inconsistancy in using public money to provide affordable housing, then allowing the profit motive to act unregulated in setting housing prices, in the pretence that 'the market' is the reason why nobody has to live in shanti towns in this country.

 

The market can not and does not adequately provide for housing needs because it's chief motivation is profit, not provide housing. The belief that housing needs are met by 'the market' is a fallacy belied by the simple fact that without the vast amounts of subsidised housing built after the war, we would now have chronic homelessness and poverty caused by the shortfall of supply over demand - a thing which can work in favour of 'the market.'

 

All totally spot on, top post

[Cyclone]

There is a massive ideological inconsistancy in using public money to provide affordable housing, then allowing private profit to push prices up until, once again, building stops because new houses are no longer profitable, because few people can afford them.

Higher prices make building new houses more profitable, not less.

If 'the market' were really the driving force behind housing provision, there would be shanty towns springing up all over the place.

Nobody said that the markets should be unregulated, being a landlord certainly isn't.

 

The market can not and does not adequately provide for housing needs because it's chief motivation is profit, not the provision of housing. The belief that housing needs are met by 'the market' is a fallacy belied by the simple fact that without the vast amounts of subsidised housing built after the war, we would now have chronic homelessness and poverty caused by the shortfall of supply over demand - a thing which can work in favour of 'the market.'

The state has never had the responsibility to provide housing for people though, nor should it.