Work starts on the eagerly awaited new Foxtons office on Brixton Road

[leanderman]

What people often ignore is that prices in places like Brixton tend not to rise merely as a result of popularity, but because prices in surrounding areas have risen too. They rise because of an excess of demand over supply.
Calculate the number of households in, say, Greater London, and the number of available dwellings. Now look at the disparity between households and available dwellings. With that kind of pressure on supply (estimates of excess of households over dwellings vary from as few as 50,000 to as many as 250,000, so even if we split the difference, that's 150,000 dwellings too few), little short of a major economic meltdown is going to exert downward pressure on prices. We can look forward to seeing those prices continue to edge up.

London's population figures make the same point:

2001: 7.2million
2011: 8.2million
2018: 9million (ONS forecast)

 

[Gramsci]

Barclays drew on the easy money from the Fed and BoE but was just as reliant on a huge investment from the Gulf.

The measures deemed necessary to save all of us - such as QE - are making the rich richer by inflating their assets and making those assets cheaper to fund.

I think this is a consequence of the policy rather than its main aim.

At the start of the crisis the Governor of the Bank of England was talking about "moral hazard" in relation to saving the banking system.

I notice this language has gone. It was thrown out in the panic when governments realised the muppets in banking had potentially brought capitalism to a crisis that it could not get out of.

There were no "policies" as such initially. The aim was to save the banking system and bankers. ( Fred Goodwin for example went to see Darling to complain that the Governor of the Bank of England was being "difficult") The raft of measures brought in meant "moral hazard" had to be ditched. "Policy" was made ad hoc.

In the long term is has "not saved us all". There is a whole lot of people suffering out there (not bankers).

A total collapse of the economy might have been better than what is happening now. Which is that the poorest 30% are getting hammered.

The calculation is that whilst the middle classed might have to tighten there belts a bit they are not going to lose to much in the short term. There children will. The bankers/ super rich globetrotting elite are doing quite nicely thankyou.

QE is just being absorbed by banks to rebuild themselves. Its not going into the rest of the economy.

An alternative was put forward by Ken Livingstone, that money should be printed ( for that is what QE is) to start a building programme of social housing -Keynesianism. Instead of giving it to banks.

 

[leanderman]

At the start of the crisis the Governor of the Bank of England was talking about "moral hazard" in relation to saving the banking system.

There were no "policies" as such. The aim was to save the bankers. The raft of measures brought in meant "moral hazard" had to be ditched.

As I said, QE has winners and losers

 

[Gramsci]

That should be part of government policy.

Bit confused here.

Why the exclamation marks after the 30% getting hammered? Its hardly controversial comment.

QE has done nothing for the economy. I do not see that QE has helped to get the economy going again.

I do not understand what u mean by "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? I am starting to think that the crisis is going to be now a long lasting one. Things are going to get really bad for some people.

"Moral Hazard" was obviously ditched. Under "moral hazard" the banks that messed up should have been left to go under. That is how capitalism is supposed to work according to neo liberalist free markets. That is so obvious I do not understand why u say I am wrong. Please explain.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Things are going to get really bad for some people.

They already have

 

[mxh]

.

The calculation is that whilst the middle classed might have to tighten there belts a bit they are not going to lose to much in the short term. There children will. The bankers/ super rich globetrotting elite are doing quite nicely thankyou.

QE is just being absorbed by banks to rebuild themselves. Its not going into the rest of the economy.

An alternative was put forward by Ken Livingstone, that money should be printed ( for that is what QE is) to start a building programme of social housing -Keynesianism. Instead of giving it to banks.

The Middle class are the next target as per the Cyprus haircut, along with small business.

I agree QE is just for the banks as they are probably insolvent, hence the now common atm computer glitches.

Shame no one else in government echoed Ken Livingston idea.

 

[Gramsci]

They already have

Yes I know. Leanderman exclamation marks are possibly wrongly interpreted by me.

Or it goes back to my point that this government ( not the last one) is dealing with the crisis by hammering the bottom 30%.

It surprising ( or not) that a lot of this is invisible to the rest of society.

Unfortunately its only when people riot that they get taken notice of.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Found myself getting really depressed about a friend's situation over the weekend. They got wrongly cut off ESA and have been told it will be about 2 months before they get a penny. People on ESA are vulnerable people. I'm not surprised some kill themselves. It's really shit. There's been a rise in loan-sharking on estates. It just gets worse.

 

[leanderman]

Bit confused here.

Why the exclamation marks after the 30% getting hammered? Its hardly controversial comment.

Please explain.

Having problems editing posts.

The exclamation marks related to my doubt as to the contention that total collapse might have been preferable.

And not to the fact that 30 per cent of people are struggling, which is quite clearly true.

[/quote]

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Unfortunately its only when people riot that they get taken notice of.

Will they have any fight in them? I doubt it.

 

[mxh]

Found myself getting really depressed about a friend's situation over the weekend. They got wrongly cut off ESA and have been told it will be about 2 months before they get a penny. People on ESA are vulnerable people. I'm not surprised some kill themselves. It's really shit. There's been a rise in loan-sharking on estates. It just gets worse.

2 months is really poor, especially as it was done in error.

Last resort but the Foodbank deals with helping people in similar situations.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Last resort but the Foodbank deals with helping people in similar situations.

You have to have a referral, you can't just rock up and ask.

 

[mxh]

You have to have a referral, you can't just rock up and ask.

I think the GP can do it.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

2 months is really poor, especially as it was done in error.

They insist a letter was sent asking for the claimant to attend but they're insistent that it didn't arrive. This is the second time this has happened although the DWP admitted the first time they'd made a mistake but the claimant lost housing benefit which can't be paid back because they borrowed the money to pay the rent...it's just so shit.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I think the GP can do it.

I think they've got that covered now, can't remember who said they'd do the referral.

 

[Gramsci]

The Middle class are the next target as per the Cyprus haircut, along with small business.

I agree QE is just for the banks as they are probably insolvent, hence the now common atm computer glitches.

Shame no one else in government echoed Ken Livingston idea.

I agree the middle class are next target. Some who work in public sector already are. Depends on how far this government thinks it can push it.

Here is what Ken said.

Ken Livingstone Former London Mayor added that he wants a huge public house-building programme to help lift the economy out of depression.

He said: “Over the last four or five years the Bank of England has printed electronically £375 billion which has kept the banking system afloat.

"If a quarter of that had been diverted to a five-year housing programme, we could have bought 100,000 homes a year, and not increased our debt.

"Homes owned by the Bank of England and managed by local authorities.”

He added: “I don’t want to see us building council houses that are just for the poorest, the single parents.

"I grew up on a council estate — Tulse Hill — which was a mixed community of working class and middle class, secure and safe.”

He called for a return to rent controls as “our private rented sector has become a scam”.
Ken Livingstone Former London Mayor added that he wants a huge public house-building programme to help lift the economy out of depression.

He said: “Over the last four or five years the Bank of England has printed electronically £375 billion which has kept the banking system afloat.

"If a quarter of that had been diverted to a five-year housing programme, we could have bought 100,000 homes a year, and not increased our debt.

"Homes owned by the Bank of England and managed by local authorities.”

He added: “I don’t want to see us building council houses that are just for the poorest, the single parents.

"I grew up on a council estate — Tulse Hill — which was a mixed community of working class and middle class, secure and safe.”

He called for a return to rent controls as “our private rented sector has become a scam”.

 

[leanderman]

Yes I know. Leanderman exclamation marks are possibly wrongly interpreted by me.

Or it goes back to my point that this government ( not the last one) is dealing with the crisis by hammering the bottom 30%.

It surprising ( or not) that a lot of this is invisible to the rest of society.

Unfortunately its only when people riot that they get taken notice of.

This point is spot on.

 

[Gramsci]

Found myself getting really depressed about a friend's situation over the weekend. They got wrongly cut off ESA and have been told it will be about 2 months before they get a penny. People on ESA are vulnerable people. I'm not surprised some kill themselves. It's really shit. There's been a rise in loan-sharking on estates. It just gets worse.

One of guys who hangs around Brixton I sometimes chat to has had his sickness benefit cut after seeing ATOS.

He is an ex soldier with arthritis.

He reckons when he appeals he will get it back. As he said a lot of people are winning on appeal. Its all the stress and time it takes.

Vulnerable people are being cut off.

 

[leanderman]

The question is: Should we have prioritised our desire to punish bankers for their folly and greed (and follow the precepts of moral hazard and laissez-faire economics)?

Or, as the BoE seems to think, avoid doing so because it would be counterproductive (cutting off the nose to spite the face).

It is unfortunate that the big winners with QE are the rich - but without the economy might have been in a worse state.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

The BoE is hardly a neutral player here.

 

[leanderman]

The BoE is hardly a neutral player here.

I like to think they are doing what they think is right.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I like to think they are doing what they think is right.

The problem for us being that the B of E do not have a good history of actually "getting it right" when doing what they think is right. Norman and the Gold Standard spring to mind.

 

[leanderman]

The problem for us being that the B of E do not have a good history of actually "getting it right" when doing what they think is right. Norman and the Gold Standard spring to mind.

Absolutely, the BoE may be wrong on QE - and it is galling that it is 'enrichering' the rich - but the policy is a plausible one - and not one I think aimed solely at saving bankers.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I like to think they are doing what they think is right.

Very few (if any) people do what they think is wrong.

 

[leanderman]

Very few (if any) people do what they think is wrong.

Maybe - I was replying to the suggestion that the Bank of England acts for the rich.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Maybe - I was replying to the suggestion that the Bank of England acts for the rich.

My proposal is that the decision-makers in the Bank of England are inherently always going to be people who think that the best course for the economy generally involves promoting the interests of the rich. I don't imagine they are doing it out of personal greed or anything, certainly.

 

[leanderman]

My proposal is that the decision-makers in the Bank of England are inherently always going to be people who think that the best course for the economy generally involves promoting the interests of the rich. I don't imagine they are doing it out of personal greed or anything, certainly.

Let's see if Mark Carney (ex- Goldman Sachs) is any better!

 

[Gramsci]

The question is: Should we have prioritised our desire to punish bankers for their folly and greed (and follow the precepts of moral hazard and laissez-faire economics)?

Or, as the BoE seems to think, avoid doing so because it would be counterproductive (cutting off the nose to spite the face).

It is unfortunate that the big winners with QE are the rich - but without the economy might have been in a worse state.

The BoE was not that keen on bailing out the bankers. As I have posted before. I think the BoE was pressured by government to take action. It was supposed to be independent. But that was shelved when the crisis got serious.

This has nothing to do with punishing anyone. The market is supposed to work by "creative destruction" etc. Its not about "we" wanting to punish them. That is how the system is supposed to work. That is the mantra of neo liberal economics. There is a logic to it. It was not followed. For last 30 years its been what people have been told is the best way.

 

[Gramsci]

The question is: Should we have prioritised our desire to punish bankers for their folly and greed (and follow the precepts of moral hazard and laissez-faire economics)?

Its not QE that is only measure being used. Among others is this recent brainwave from the government.

The economic rationale for designing a mortgage market intervention in this way is almost impossible to understand. There are well-known market failures in both the retail and wholesale markets for mortgages, so there's plenty of scope for radical reform. But, instead of explaining what problem it is trying to solve and how, the Treasury has created yet another subsidy for banks. Worse still, the structure of the subsidy will weaken competition even further by propping up incumbent banks and perpetuating an unreconstructed housing finance market with fundamental weaknesses.
What about housebuyers? To the extent that they see any benefits, it will push up demand and hence prices, resulting in further distortions in an already distorted market. This will redistribute wealth from the poor to the rich and from those who don't own houses to those who do. It will neither build any new houses nor make existing ones more "affordable" in any meaningful sense.
Unfortunately, rather than tackling today's economic problems, this will simply sow the seeds of tomorrow's crisis.

 

[shygirl]

Found myself getting really depressed about a friend's situation over the weekend. They got wrongly cut off ESA and have been told it will be about 2 months before they get a penny. People on ESA are vulnerable people. I'm not surprised some kill themselves. It's really shit. There's been a rise in loan-sharking on estates. It just gets worse.

When one of my yp was in this position, he claimed JSA pending the outcome of appeal against ESA being stopped. Could your friend do this?