REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

I'm starting to think that ideological blindness makes it impossible for you and Grasshopper to answer an important and obvious question. But hope springs eternal, so let me repeat it, for the umpteenth time.

Why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn't it be healthier for society, i.e. wouldn't we all be better off, if they merely held their value, in real terms?

Why do you think it is a good thing for houses to continue indefinitely appreciating in value, and how fast a rate of appreciation do you suppose is indefinitely sustainable? Might there, even conceivably, come a point in your eyes when prices were too high?

At first all you offered by way of response was blind faith in market forces, as if the property/housing market is a kind of wind-up toy that will tick away happily without any need for intervention. Now you're starting to mention that the planning process might also have an influence. In other words, you're beginning to allow that intervention in the market is unavoidable.

Next question, but it's really the same question put in a different way: What should be the desired outcome of public intervention in the housng market?

<blockquote data-quote="Grey" data-source="post: 2518989" data-attributes="member: 65112">I&#039;m starting to think that ideological blindness makes it impossible for you and Grasshopper to answer an important and obvious question. But hope springs eternal, so let me repeat it, for the umpteenth time.Why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn&#039;t it be healthier for society, i.e. wouldn&#039;t we all be better off, if they merely held their value, in real terms? Why do you think it is a good thing for houses to continue indefinitely appreciating in value, and how fast a rate of appreciation do you suppose is indefinitely sustainable? Might there, even conceivably, come a point in your eyes when prices were too high?At first all you offered by way of response was blind faith in market forces, as if the property/housing market is a kind of wind-up toy that will tick away happily without any need for intervention. Now you&#039;re starting to mention that the planning process might also have an influence. In other words, you&#039;re beginning to allow that intervention in the market is unavoidable. Next question, but it&#039;s really the same question put in a different way: What should be the desired outcome of public intervention in the housng market?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Grey, post: 2518989, member: 65112"] I'm starting to think that ideological blindness makes it impossible for you and Grasshopper to answer an important and obvious question. But hope springs eternal, so let me repeat it, for the umpteenth time. Why are houses generally an appreciating asset? Wouldn't it be healthier for society, i.e. wouldn't we all be better off, if they merely held their value, in real terms? Why do you think it is a good thing for houses to continue indefinitely appreciating in value, and how fast a rate of appreciation do you suppose is indefinitely sustainable? Might there, even conceivably, come a point in your eyes when prices were too high? At first all you offered by way of response was blind faith in market forces, as if the property/housing market is a kind of wind-up toy that will tick away happily without any need for intervention. Now you're starting to mention that the planning process might also have an influence. In other words, you're beginning to allow that intervention in the market is unavoidable. Next question, but it's really the same question put in a different way: What should be the desired outcome of public intervention in the housng market? [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?