The joy of being a landlord

[radderfire]

Forget Bitcoin for this discussion. Whether it's gold or Bitcoin is irrelevant. The point is money should be attached to something with real world value, and not just bits of paper printed at the whim of a central bank (aka a privileged minority of the population).

If you think about it, central bankers do nothing for the real economy, they just extract money from it. When referring to the economy, central bankers should call it "our wealth extraction scheme", because that's all they do. If you listen to any of the interest rate change announcements by either Powell or Andrew Bailey, they are just long winded nonsense droning on about this that and the other, when really all they are ever doing is printing money to keep their wealth extraction scheme afloat, it has nothing to do with the running of the real economy.

What is happening now is private BTL landlords are getting pushed out, all they ever were was glorified caretakers for the banks, and now banks themselves will become the landlords. Banks stay in business over time because they can just print money for themselves. Further "too big to fail", and further inequality.

I do hope the general population can gain a better understanding of this, as then we might not have to listen to the drivel from most economists and central bankers anymore. The true reasons for it are very simple but not well understood, as it's made to seem complex on purpose.

 

[radderfire]

Btc wasn't in existence, then it was. So it's literally printed out of thin air as well.

Use gold as the standard instead then, I don't care. The point is, if money has a meaningful anchor, the problems of inflation and house price inflation go away.

 

[Werewolf]

I've never understood the issue people have with mould. The number of people who seem to just completely ignore it for months and months and then complain boggles the mind. Yes there are plenty of houses that get mould because of a fault that needs fixing by the owner but I would never let any property I lived in build up mould like many people seem to. Wipe it off. Buy mould cleaning spray. What am I missing?

Possibly the fact that if you rent you can't fix the underlying problem*, and that it can actually be quite hard and expensive to deal with it once you realise it's there, especially if you have no option to fix the root cause, so every few weeks you're spending out on specialist products and having to find the time/energy to constantly fight it

We found a fair bit of mould behind one of our book cases in a bedroom a few years back that we didn't know the mould was there for a long time, it was only that we spotted a bit when putting some stuff on the top of the book case, dealing with it required shifting half a room or furniture and took something like a week or two, and that was not due to an intrinsic fault but prolonged occupancy without the ability to ventilate it properly due to the outside weather.


*And a lot of landlords would much rather blame a succession of tenants for the problem rather than spend the money to find why they keep having it, and fix i

 

[413x]

Use gold as the standard instead then, I don't care. The point is, if money has a meaningful anchor, the problems of inflation and house price inflation go away.

But it's exactly the same.

Gold and btc are quite similar. But things change in value all the time.

Those with the most gold will always have the most gold. Anyone new with no gold will accumulate it very slowly via work.

I don't see how it would solve any problems?

 

[fez]

Possibly the fact that if you rent you can't fix the underlying problem*, and that it can actually be quite hard and expensive to deal with it once you realise it's there, especially if you have no option to fix the root cause, so every few weeks you're spending out on specialist products and having to find the time/energy to constantly fight it

*And a lot of landlords would much rather blame a succession of tenants for the problem rather than spend the money to find why they keep having it, and fix i

I would wager that plenty of mould issues are entirely due to lifestyle. I know that you can put timers on fans in bathrooms, link it to the lights so they can't not put it on etc but plenty of people dry washing indoors, don't vent the property at all and are shocked that mould develops.

There are no doubt plenty of issues that need actually dealing with and they should be dealt with but we have had mould in various properties and we just treat it. When you see pictures of people that have mould everywhere and they have clearly done nothing about it for months and months. The mind just boggles.

I can understand not realising its there but some people have horrendous and very obvious issues they still ignore.

Its another one of those problems where both sides can be at fault but regardless, I wouldn't want mould everywhere in my home no matter who was at fault. Especially if I had children in there.

 

[radderfire]

But it's exactly the same.

Gold and btc are quite similar. But things change in value all the time.

Those with the most gold will always have the most gold. Anyone new with no gold will accumulate it very slowly via work.

I don't see how it would solve any problems?

You introduce a gold standard. This means you can take your paper money to the bank and exchange it for gold if you want to. This means sterling represents a fixed weight of gold. Once you do this, it means the paper money has meaningful value. The banks are then accountable for the money that has been issued and they are going to issue. Essentially, it prevents the abuse of money printing, and introducing too much paper money into the system, aka inflation (of the money supply). When you do that, it prevents "funny money", i.e. meaningless money that was not linked to some real world economic activity, being introduced into the system and artificially pumping up prices.

If you research the history of money you will gain an understanding of this.

 

[aVdub]

*And a lot of landlords would much rather blame a succession of tenants for the problem rather than spend the money to find why they keep having it, and fix i

* A lot - Is there data to show this?

 

[dowie]

Forget Bitcoin for this discussion. Whether it's gold or Bitcoin is irrelevant. The point is money should be attached to something with real world value, and not just bits of paper printed at the whim of a central bank (aka a privileged minority of the population).

Why does Bitcoin suddenly have real-world value vs "bits of paper"?

There's nothing in theory stopping those "bits of paper" from being digital instead - third-party stable currencies pegged to USD etc.. exist.

The reason "it's all really expensive" is because it is able to become artificially high through the bankers printing money from thin air, and the rest of the population has no option but to pony up for somewhere to live. The reason it's dysfunctional is because money itself, the medium of exchange, is easily manipulated by the banking sector. Going back to using gold coins would work better ... the sooner more people, particularly young people, understand this the better.

This is flawed though, interest rates have risen which means people can't afford to bid as much as they'd otherwise be able to which has a dampening effect on prices.

There isn't really a magical solution to this other than building more homes/increasing supply.

Just think about it, affordability hasn't necessarily changed - if rates rise and prices fall a bit or remain stagnant relative to where they'd have otherwise been then homes aren't necessarily any more affordable, the competition for the limited supply of homes is still there it's just people more reliant on borrowing can't afford to bid as much, a smaller mortgages at higher rates of interest have the same affordability/repayments as larger mortgages at lower rates.

The blame is the planning system and other restrictions (must develop some silly amount of "affordable" homes etc..). We need to build more homes in general and increase supply.

 

[Freakbro]

LOL at the gold standard, which we got rid of because it just wasn't working

The gold standard was largely abandoned during the Great Depression before being re-instated in a limited form as part of the post-World War II Bretton Woods system. The gold standard was abandoned due to its propensity for volatility, as well as the constraints it imposed on governments: by retaining a fixed exchange rate, governments were hamstrung in engaging in expansionary policies to, for example, reduce unemployment during economic recessions.[9][10]

According to a survey of 39 economists, the vast majority (93 percent) agreed that a return to the gold standard would not improve price-stability and employment outcomes,[11]

 

[dowie]

Yes the fundamental issue is the inadequate supply of affordable/social housing.

No, it's not! We've got plenty of social/affordable housing, we can build some of that if/when we increase the supply of housing in general but it's regular housing not being "affordable" in the first place that's the issue.

Plenty of it in London but it's not much good for everyone else in London.

In fact it's migrants from certain poor countries who are disproportionately likely to end up in it and it's a huge benefit, in some London boroughs it's basically a subsidy worth tens of thousands of pounds a year.

4th highest in the OECD:

We need more homes for sale and for market rent, if you increase the supply of regular homes you can bring down the costs of buying and renting for everyone. Also, the requirements for some developments to have 50% social housing are ridiculous, it just makes potential projects less viable for developers and stifles additional development, the very thing we need more of!

 

[radderfire]

Why does Bitcoin suddenly have real-world value vs "bits of paper"?

There's nothing in theory stopping those "bits of paper" from being digital instead - third-party stable currencies pegged to USD etc.. exist.

Essentially my argument is that all the problems with high prices in housing and everything else are being caused by the Bank of England issuing more money into the system by creating it from nothing. This is the cause that needs to be addressed. It should not be that a minority of central bankers should be able to issue currency that in reality has no grounding in real world activity. When humans started using money it was rare sea shells. What is causing the problem today is there is no link between paper money (or digital money) that actually can be linked back to real world value. This is the root cause of all the problems. Issuing money from thin air was the downfall of Weimar Germany, the UK has the same issue today. To me, it just seems obvious. Bitcoin is merely one potential solution to the cause of this problem. I'm not to bothered how the problem gets solved, I just want it solved!

I also agree more houses need to be built, that is obviously true.

The reason none of these things are happening, is it suits the people in control of the system very nicely the way it is.

Anyway, I just chipped in today as someone asked what was the cause of crazy house prices, and I think I've made my views clear. I don't want to derail this thread too much discussing the corruption of money itself, but in my view that is essentially the problem.

 

[dowie]

Essentially my argument is that all the problems with high prices in housing and everything else are being caused by the Bank of England issuing more money into the system by creating it from nothing. This is the cause that needs to be addressed.

No, it doesn't, in other areas of the world (such as some places in the US) homes are quite affordable because they have good supply and that's come simply as a result of allowing people to build new homes.

 

[radderfire]

No, it doesn't, in other areas of the world (such as some places in the US) homes are quite affordable because they have good supply and that's come simply as a result of allowing people to build new homes.

In the UK, it's a combination of over supply of money into the system, and under supply of new homes. However, this suits the powers that be very nicely, it pays for their second homes in Cornwall.

 

[dowie]

In the UK, it's a combination of over supply of money into the system, and under supply of new homes. However, this suits the powers that be very nicely, it pays for their second homes in Cornwall.

Are you under the impression that the US doesn't print money too? Because if so you're clearly wrong ergo no, it's not that conspiracy stuff you like re: the gold standard or bitcoin, it's just a supply issue. See here re: Austin a city in a country that prints the US dollar:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1758181756362973529

Create a permissible environment where lots more housing can be built freely, perhaps allow for new building methods, more (modern) pre-fabs etc.. and there goes the artificial supply problem that's been impacting prices so much.

 

[radderfire]

Create a permissible environment where lots more housing can be built freely, perhaps allow for new building methods, more (modern) pre-fabs etc.. and there goes the artificial supply problem that's been impacting prices so much.

Call me cynical but I'm just saying it suits the bankers/government in the UK to have a supply problem, because it maintains the situation where people have to pay through the nose just to have a small space to exist in. It is the rich and powerful controlling the poor, as ever.

 

[Bear]

Call me cynical but I'm just saying it suits the bankers/government in the UK to have a supply problem, because it maintains the situation where people have to pay through the nose just to have a small space to exist in. It is the rich and powerful controlling the poor, as ever.

I fail to see how the Bank of England printing money to buy government debt makes house prices go up. The Bank of England have been selling that government debt on the open market, so that money will eventually disappear.

 

[radderfire]

I fail to see how the Bank of England printing money to buy government debt makes house prices go up. The Bank of England have been selling that government debt on the open market, so that money will eventually disappear.

Money is "funny money" now, it has just been printed out of thin air, keeping the banks afloat. It started in 2008 when a lot of them should have gone bankrupt, and it's continuing to this day. A lot banks would be bankrupt again now if it was not for money printing by the central bank. There is no real check on it. Everything is being manipulated, the printed money has pumped the housing and stock markets. If you listen to reliable share analysts, they'll tell you there are no reliable price signals anymore because of this.

 

[Mr Badger]

No, it's not! We've got plenty of social/affordable housing, we can build some of that if/when we increase the supply of housing in general but it's regular housing not being "affordable" in the first place that's the issue.

Plenty of it in London but it's not much good for everyone else in London.

In fact it's migrants from certain poor countries who are disproportionately likely to end up in it and it's a huge benefit, in some London boroughs it's basically a subsidy worth tens of thousands of pounds a year.

4th highest in the OECD:

We need more homes for sale and for market rent, if you increase the supply of regular homes you can bring down the costs of buying and renting for everyone. Also, the requirements for some developments to have 50% social housing are ridiculous, it just makes potential projects less viable for developers and stifles additional development, the very thing we need more of!

Obviously increasing the general supply of houses would help reduce demand. But recent history suggests you will be waiting a long time for the private sector to deliver them. Or do you think the government are going to build those homes? It seems strange not to want to take some heat out of the bottom of the market and address the issue of providing more affordable housing for lower/minimum wage earners who currently see a huge chunk of their salary disappearing in rent and may well be on in work benefits (a state subsidy for private landlords). I get that you couldn't resist having a dig about immigrants, but the idea that the UK has "plenty of social/affordable housing" does not seem to match reality across most of the UK. My understanding is that if you are not in a priority category (such as fleeing violence or being legally homeless) you are in for a long wait, if you ever qualify at all. I have known a few people in real life who tried to apply and were told they would never get high enough up the list to qualify for the available amount of council accommodation. So they end up paying private rent for a flat/bedsit/room in a shared house.

 

[dowie]

Obviously increasing the general supply of houses would help reduce demand. But recent history suggests you will be waiting a long time for the private sector to deliver them. Or do you think the government are going to build those homes?

The people you want to build the council housing? They'd need to contract that out to the private sector too.

It seems strange not to want to take some heat out of the bottom of the market and address the issue of providing more affordable housing for lower/minimum wage earners who currently see a huge chunk of their salary disappearing in rent and may well be on in work benefits (a state subsidy for private landlords). I get that you couldn't resist having a dig about immigrants, but the idea that the UK has "plenty of social/affordable housing" does not seem to match reality across most of the UK.

We already do take the heat out of the bottom of the market, see the chart posted previously. We could do with some reform of it though like more means testing, removing the ability to pass on tenancies to heirs, scrapping the right to buy etc..

Immigrants from some countries are an issue there too, the general topic of immigration is for a separate thread but there are clear differences between country of origin and %s ending up in social housing, it's ultimately an additional freeby worth many thousands per year in London. Meanwhile, others are paying ever-increasing rents for a limited supply of housing, the answer shouldn't be to build disproportionately more social housing, for example, in say central London and then house a load more unproductive people.

My understanding is that if you are not in a priority category (such as fleeing violence or being legally homeless) you are in for a long wait, if you ever qualify at all. I have known a few people in real life who tried to apply and were told they would never get high enough up the list to qualify for the available amount of council accommodation. So they end up paying private rent for a flat/bedsit/room in a shared house.

Oh no, they have to pay for their housing like most people do - so what? Why shouldn't they pay private rent - if they're not in a priority category then what makes them so special and why should the state give them subsidised accommodation?

We should be focused on allowing the building more accommodation to meet demand and not prioritising the handing out freebies to entitled people, it all sounds nice "affordable housing" but that then impacts the viability of new developments when you local authorities demanding some excessive XX% of "affordable" homes to go to.a select few, instead of just approving more homes in the first place.

 

[Mr Badger]

The people you want to build the council housing? They'd need to contract that out to the private sector too.



We already do take the heat out of the bottom of the market, see the chart posted previously. We could do with some reform of it though like more means testing, removing the ability to pass on tenancies to heirs, scrapping the right to buy etc..

Immigrants from some countries are an issue there too, the general topic of immigration is for a separate thread but there are clear differences between country of origin and %s ending up in social housing, it's ultimately an additional freeby worth many thousands per year in London. Meanwhile, others are paying ever-increasing rents for a limited supply of housing, the answer shouldn't be to build disproportionately more social housing, for example, in say central London and then house a load more unproductive people.



Oh no, they have to pay for their housing like most people do - so what? Why shouldn't they pay private rent - if they're not in a priority category then what makes them so special and why should the state give them subsidised accommodation?

We should be focused on allowing the building more accommodation to meet demand and not prioritising the handing out freebies to entitled people, it all sounds nice "affordable housing" but that then impacts the viability of new developments when you local authorities demanding some excessive XX% of "affordable" homes to go to.a select few, instead of just approving more homes in the first place.

No one is arguing against the need for more houses. Perhaps you should think about why the private sector has not been building them in sufficient quantities to impact on the market?

Agreed that right to buy etc. should not have happened, but you seem amazingly lacking in empathy for people on low wages who may well be working in key roles (I could give real life examples). Taking more of them out of private renting would cool the market and transfer the cost to the state from in work benefits that currently go into the pockets of landlords. I've not seen any credible analysis that concludes the UK has sufficient social/affordable housing.

Also, we may be at cross purposes regarding affordable housing. You seem to be picturing it as a part of a mixed private development, whereas I'm thinking more along the lines of the government/local authorities getting some blocks of apartments built. If they sorted it out then private developers wouldn't need to be given targets for affordable housing (which they usually seem to weasel out of in my neck of the woods).