Greedy landlords rub their hands with glee as Londoners queue in the cold to buy flats

[editor]

People will make money.

How horrendous.

It is when they're making their money by destroying communities, displacing long term residents and making neighbourhoods unaffordable while all the time wishing for yet higher rents to be inflicted on tenants.

 

[killer b]

There is. But, come on, newspapers are not actually supposed to misattribute even indirect quotes, so it's reasonable to react to the quote as if it was actually said.

It's reasonable to react uncritically to a newspaper story?

 

[redsquirrel]

There is. But, come on, newspapers are not actually supposed to misattribute even indirect quotes, so it's reasonable to react to the quote as if it was actually said.

Yeah I mean it's not as if journalists just make a whole load of crap up.

 

[coley]

While I'm loath to pitch in on this bellend's side, it isn't a quote.

But, said bellend seems to think profit is more important than people, irrespective of any "quote"

 

[killer b]

But, said bellend seems to think profit is more important than people, irrespective of any "quote"

He’s been sold the idea as a sensible investment – which tbf it probably is. The human cost of investments like this isn’t always obvious to the investor, especially if they don’t live in the country, let alone the city they’re buying in. Is this much different from, say, buying shares in a far-eastern tech company? Or any company that makes their products in sweatshops in India or China?

As I’ve said above, focusing your ire on the individual buyer is pointless – as long as housing remains a decent investment opportunity, there’ll always be people who’re amoral or ignorant enough to take it.

 

[kabbes]

There is a whole category of financial behaviours, which include non-ethical investments and ultra-efficient tax arrangements, that I have always been ambivalent about. It should ideally be that nobody undertakes such things. But is it reasonable to think that people will spontaneously choose to act against their best interests in a society that is almost entirely unaffected by their personal, specific acts?

It's really very similar in that regard to acting in any other "tragedy of the commons" ways, such as anti-environmentalism or buying from non-compassionate farming. Ideally, we'd all always choose the most alturistic path. And there is good evidence that when the effect of that alturism is personalised and direct, we do. But when the beneficiaries are indirect and our personal impact is minute, we often don't.

The answer, surely, is that this is exactly what the legislature is for. If a behaviour harms society, legislate against it. In this specific case: either don't allow multiple home ownership or impose incredibly strict rent controls and tenants' rights. Then you aren't relying on the good-will of the rest of the world.

In the meantime, I find it hard to condemn as a class those who have to survive within the system we have from making the choices that allow them the easiest ride, even if I can easily condemn specific manifestations of that behaviour.

 

[killer b]

I’m of the view stories like this are a sort of mirror of the benefit scum stories the tabloids run. Two-minute hates for liberals.

 

[Dogsauce]

The answer, surely, is that this is exactly what the legislature is for. If a behaviour harms society, legislate against it. In this specific case: either don't allow multiple home ownership or impose incredibly strict rent controls and tenants' rights. Then you aren't relying on the good-will of the rest of the world.

In the meantime, I find it hard to condemn as a class those who have to survive within the system we have from making the choices that allow them the easiest ride, even if I can easily condemn specific manifestations of that behaviour.

When people who undertake this behaviour have essentially captured the legislative process, how can you hold out hope for any change to occur? Many MPs profit from buy-to-let investments, sometimes with homes originally funded by the taxpayer. Nothing will change whilst those writing the rules are those with the capital to play a system that oppresses and denies others. Are MPs also blameless, are they just taking the easiest path by designing a system that works in their favour? Where does the buck stop in terms of personal responsibility?

 

[kabbes]

When people who undertake this behaviour have essentially captured the legislative process, how can you hold out hope for any change to occur? Many MPs profit from buy-to-let investments, sometimes with homes originally funded by the taxpayer. Nothing will change whilst those writing the rules are those with the capital to play a system that oppresses and denies others. Are MPs also blameless, are they just taking the easiest path by designing a system that works in their favour? Where does the buck stop in terms of personal responsibility?

I don't hold out much hope for any legislative improvements unless the ideas behind them gain sufficient momentum so as to overcome the entrenched positions of self-interest in the establishment. And that is a hell of a lot of momentum needed, undoubtedly.

That's a different question though. I also certainly don't hold out much hope that people will spontaneously act against their interests due to nebulous goals that they personally have almost no influence towards.

If society is broken, the fix won't be to tut at the latter. It will be to somehow force the former.

 

[maomao]

If society is broken, the fix won't be to tut at the latter. It will be to somehow force the former.

And yet it was tutting at 'benefits cheats' that was a key part of the process that's managed to persuade a large and vocal part of British society that the welfare state is a bad thing. Tutting on a left wing bulletin board won't do much good (or any harm) but it's important to still be able to describe the behaviour as immoral.

 

[Dogsauce]

I’m of the view stories like this are a sort of mirror of the benefit scum stories the tabloids run. Two-minute hates for liberals.

Given the amount of liberals with their finger in the buy-to-let pie it's more likely to be a case of 'at least I'm not as bad as those guys, I have an ethical attitude to my small portfolio of properties, I'd never be so vulgar as to crow about rising prices'.

 

[killer b]

And yet it was tutting at 'benefits cheats' that was a key part of the process that's managed to persuade a large and vocal part of British society that the welfare state is a bad thing. Tutting on a left wing bulletin board won't do much good (or any harm) but it's important to still be able to describe the behaviour as immoral.

But benefit cheat stories are built on lies and distortions. Is that how we counter the scum? Our own lies and distortions?

 

[maomao]

But benefit cheat stories are built on lies and distortions. Is that how we counter the scum? Our own lies and distortions?

There's no need to lie or distort but how do you push for a legislative change without having a popular reason for it?

 

[killer b]

I'm not totally sure - but I do know that making villains out of Mr Chiu and his ilk isn't the way to go about it. That's using the poisonous tactics of those we claim to be against.

 

[kabbes]

And yet it was tutting at 'benefits cheats' that was a key part of the process that's managed to persuade a large and vocal part of British society that the welfare state is a bad thing. Tutting on a left wing bulletin board won't do much good (or any harm) but it's important to still be able to describe the behaviour as immoral.

There is a case there. But a lot of the damage to the housing sector is done not by individuals with one buy-to-let down the road but by companies that have a hundred properties in their portfolio, a ruthless approach to rent collection and a policy of spending as little as possible on maintenance. If a few of the small-scale private landlords exit the market, you won't suddenly get cheap housing. You'll just get the big companies hoovering up even more properties.

Focusing on these buyers is mistargetting, I think. The primary problem is a lack of tenants rights and rent controls. Hating on Mr Chiu isn't going to fix that one jot.

 

[scifisam]

There is a whole category of financial behaviours, which include non-ethical investments and ultra-efficient tax arrangements, that I have always been ambivalent about. It should ideally be that nobody undertakes such things. But is it reasonable to think that people will spontaneously choose to act against their best interests in a society that is almost entirely unaffected by their personal, specific acts?

It's really very similar in that regard to acting in any other "tragedy of the commons" ways, such as anti-environmentalism or buying from non-compassionate farming. Ideally, we'd all always choose the most alturistic path. And there is good evidence that when the effect of that alturism is personalised and direct, we do. But when the beneficiaries are indirect and our personal impact is minute, we often don't.

The answer, surely, is that this is exactly what the legislature is for. If a behaviour harms society, legislate against it. In this specific case: either don't allow multiple home ownership or impose incredibly strict rent controls and tenants' rights. Then you aren't relying on the good-will of the rest of the world.

In the meantime, I find it hard to condemn as a class those who have to survive within the system we have from making the choices that allow them the easiest ride, even if I can easily condemn specific manifestations of that behaviour.

I have no idea at all why I seem to be on this thread at this point, and quoting a post. I was on the phone, not online, for most of the past hour. Maybe I leaned on something?

 

[editor]

I'm not totally sure - but I do know that making villains out of Mr Chiu and his ilk isn't the way to go about it. That's using the poisonous tactics of those we claim to be against.

Anyone wishing higher rents on others just so they can pocket even more cash for themselves can go fuck themselves, whether they're an individual or a corporate.

 

[killer b]

When I bought my house 10 years ago, there was at least some hope in my mind that when I came to sell it, it would have risen in value. I've revised my opinion on that since (it also hasn't happened, because I don't live in London or another popular metropolitan area), but I recognise that the expectation to make a profit out of buying, selling and renting out property is almost an unquestioned truth for many people. And overwhelmingly, the public discourse is that it is a good thing for the economy and therefore the country.

I don't think there's any point of making villains out of individuals who've bought into this - and certainly not on the basis of a couple of sentences in a heavily biased newspaper report.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How is that greed?

Is every investment a manifestation of greed and why the preoccupation with such moral judgements anyway?

What higher principles do you advance that trump his interest in making a livelihood for himself?

He makes his "livelihood" from his restaurant. What he makes from a buy-to-let property isn't necessary for his livelihood, it's simply something to satisfy his desire to accumulate wealth - a desire that has nothing to do with earning a living.

 

[killer b]

I think the problem I have with this kind of stuff is that - like benefit scum stories - it re-casts a systemic problem as a personal moral failure. And that lets the true culprits off the hook.

 

[editor]

I think the problem I have with this kind of stuff is that - like benefit scum stories - it re-casts a systemic problem as a personal moral failure. And that lets the true culprits off the hook.

I'd like 'am all on the hook please. Some individual buy to let owners are every bit as greedy and as ruthless as those further up the food chain. Why should they be spared people's ire?

 

[Pickman's model]

I'd like 'am all on the hook please. Some individual buy to let owners are every bit as greedy and as ruthless as those further up the food chain. Why should they be spared people's ire?

 

[killer b]

I'd like 'am all on the hook please. Some individual buy to let owners are every bit as greedy and as ruthless as those further up the food chain. Why should they be spared people's ire?

You're hanging someone on the basis of a single sentence in a biased newspaper article.

 

[Diamond]

I think the article, and this thread, particularly the manner in which it has developed, is a vehicle for inherent frustrations and the politics of envy, some or maybe all of which may be justified. The problem is that most of it is incoherent.

 

[killer b]

The politics of envy? Did you really type that?

 

[Diamond]

And also, on using legislation to try and adjust market failures - one needs to be very careful there.

The major reason for London house prices and rents being off the scale is (i) a lack of supply and (ii) an excess of demand.

If you can somehow persuade (i) the government to get rid of London's green belt and (ii) businesses and people to relocate to the rest of the UK, then you go a long way to sorting that problem out.

It is the centralisation of the UK's politics, economy and culture in a constricted London that is the major problem.

 

[Diamond]

And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?

 

[seventh bullet]

And, I think it is rather bizarre that we're focusing on Mr Chiu in our discussion when there were numerous other applicants quoted in the original article - is it maybe because he is foreign and what does that imply?

Fuck off with that shit.

 

[Diamond]

It rather whiffs of "British homes for British people", which would be a rather UKIP oriented notion.

 

[ddraig]

no it doesn't
it sounds like you scraping your dirty barrel