[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2015-May-18, 04:49, said:

It took us a while but we have now arrived at the point where people who disagree with the writer are obviously stupid xenophobic jerks. I have never found it to be a good use of my time to discuss whether or not I am a stupid xenophobic jerk. I also seldom change my mind as a result of being described as a stupid xenophobic jerk.

Maybe other people react differently.

I didn't describe anyone in this thread a stupid xenophobic jerk, and certainly not you - I am not sure how you even got the idea. I called Farage a jerk making a political career by appealing to xenophobic fears. Since I don't know him personally, I should have said more accurately that he plays a jerk in public. I apologize for the inaccuracy.
I also stand by my statement that some of the arguments in this thread basically amount to nothing else but "Sorry our country is full" are the same B.S. that Farage has mad a political career off. I didn't see that kind of argument in any of your posts.

I am fully aware that I am not convincing anyone to change their mind with my post above. But given what some posters wrote here, I am also sure that Mike's and Rik's posts won't convince them either. I am sure they will be willing to confirm that. On the other hand, when some posters argue along the same non-sensical lines as UKIP, then I am not willing to be polite enough to pretend otherwise.

Finally, with all respect, I don't think the US posters in this thread realize just how ridiculous the UK immigration policy is. In the sector I am familiar with (visas for students and scientists) there are a lot of things that are reality over here, and that would instantly kill anyone's political career in the US just for proposing it.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2015-May-18, 15:20, said:

Finally, with all respect, I don't think the US posters in this thread realize just how ridiculous the UK immigration policy is. In the sector I am familiar with (visas for students and scientists) there are a lot of things that are reality over here, and that would instantly kill anyone's political career in the US just for proposing it.

We had a particular problem with fake colleges (some of which didn't have any premises) allowing "students" who never attended a single lecture but just disappeared into the south Asian communities to work illegally to get visas. This was cracked down on in the last parliament.

It (like many things) was not very well implemented and overdone.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-18, 06:54, said:

People are allowed to build houses in/near London, the problem is that there is no profit in building affordable houses, and most housebuilding is private, so this doesn't really help the problem. Councils already stretched can't afford to build houses themselves.

So here is what happens when developers build new fancy apartment complexes targeted towards the fairly rich: all property prices go down, not just those for the fairly rich. Some fairly rich people now decide to move into these new apartment complexes; so now the slightly rich can suddenly afford the flats that would otherwise have been bought by the fairly rich. Etc.

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-18, 14:30, said:

I agree with that, but on the other hand, imagine that there wouldn't be a district system and these percentages of the votes would have yielded these percentages of seats. What kind of a coalition would you envision that would be backed by 50% of the seats?

Somebody needs to govern the country. The district system favors the bigger parties. That makes it easier to form a government. The "one man, one vote" system leads to long negotiations to form a government. But once that government is in place, it will be more balanced/moderate.

Maybe, if people really think it is an advantage that the biggest party is likely to get a majority of the seats, one could consider the Frensh/Russian system (a president is elected by absolute majority and has strong powers) or the Turkish/Greek system (the biggest party is getting a numbe of bonus seats). This achieves the same but in a less arbitrary way which is less susceptible to tactical voting and gerrymandering.

Personally I think it is a disadvantage. In the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, people know what they can expect from the government because regardless of who wins, most legislation will require a compromise between left and right because neither is happy to be dependent on splinter parties.

So proportional representation is more democratic and also gives more stability. I concede that it isn't good for making fast, bold political decisions. In the second Gulf war, it took the Danish government more than half a year to decide to send a single gunboat to the gulf because every conceivable interest group needed to be heard. I can imagine that people in the Danish military find that frustrating and would prefer a system that gave a single party, maybe even a single person, power to make decisions on behalf of the state.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2015-May-18, 15:29, said:

So here is what happens when developers build new fancy apartment complexes targeted towards the fairly rich: all property prices go down, not just those for the fairly rich. Some fairly rich people now decide to move into these new apartment complexes; so now the slightly rich can suddenly afford the flats that would otherwise have been bought by the fairly rich. Etc.

Nope, people buy them as investments then rent them out

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on 2015-May-18, 16:43, said:

So proportional representation is more democratic and also gives more stability. I concede that it isn't good for making fast, bold political decisions. In the second Gulf war, it took the Danish government more than half a year to decide to send a single gunboat to the gulf because every conceivable interest group needed to be heard. I can imagine that people in the Danish military find that frustrating and would prefer a system that gave a single party, maybe even a single person, power to make decisions on behalf of the state.

I quote Israel as a counter example. Hey let me get into bed with these religious extremists and have to let the settlers commit any atrocities they want so I can stay in power.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-18, 16:48, said:

Nope, people buy them as investments then rent them out

Yes, buy-to-let is, frankly, evil and is a serious fa tor in the housing crisis in the Southeast. Also the ever-dwindling nipimber of brownfield sites. They are already pulling down the Battersea Power Station. For those of us of a certain age, this is more an icon of London than the Tower Bridge. It breaks my heart.

[cherdano]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-18, 16:48, said:

Nope, people buy them as investments then rent them out

Well, then rents become more affordable!

If you increase property supply, then property prices will come down. This really shouldn't be controversial.

[StevenG]

cherdano, on 2015-May-19, 02:03, said:

Well, then rents become more affordable!

If you increase property supply, then property prices will come down. This really shouldn't be controversial.

It's odd how theory and practice so often differ.

[helene_t]

Australia will participate in eurovision. This adds another 6mio sqkm to the continent.

[Cyberyeti]

cherdano, on 2015-May-19, 02:03, said:

Well, then rents become more affordable!

If you increase property supply, then property prices will come down. This really shouldn't be controversial.

It doesn't work like that in practice, I have no idea why. I bought a flat in not a particularly nice location on the outskirts of London because I was working away from home on a contract that seemed it wasn't going to end (this was c 1998). I bought it because the repayments on a 10 year capital/interest mortgage were cheaper than the rent (I was renting an identical flat in the same block previously). When my contract did end after 3 years, I rented it out for a year and then sold it at a >50% profit.

The London housing market is stupid, and I suspect that there is no shortage of wealthy foreigners snapping up property in London which is fuelling the prices even more.

[NickRW]

cherdano, on 2015-May-18, 15:20, said:

I didn't describe anyone in this thread a stupid xenophobic jerk, and certainly not you - I am not sure how you even got the idea. I called Farage a jerk making a political career by appealing to xenophobic fears. Since I don't know him personally, I should have said more accurately that he plays a jerk in public. I apologize for the inaccuracy.
I also stand by my statement that some of the arguments in this thread basically amount to nothing else but "Sorry our country is full" are the same B.S. that Farage has mad a political career off. I didn't see that kind of argument in any of your posts.

I am fully aware that I am not convincing anyone to change their mind with my post above. But given what some posters wrote here, I am also sure that Mike's and Rik's posts won't convince them either. I am sure they will be willing to confirm that. On the other hand, when some posters argue along the same non-sensical lines as UKIP, then I am not willing to be polite enough to pretend otherwise.

Finally, with all respect, I don't think the US posters in this thread realize just how ridiculous the UK immigration policy is. In the sector I am familiar with (visas for students and scientists) there are a lot of things that are reality over here, and that would instantly kill anyone's political career in the US just for proposing it.

Frankly I don't understand where you are coming from. If the UK immigration policy were anything like as restrictive as that which the U.S. operates, then calling Farage a xenophobe might have some basis in fact. But regardless of what one may or may not think about a particular politician, Wikipedia has this to say about US immigration policy: "On a per capita basis, the United States lets in fewer immigrants than half the countries in the OECD.[1]"

Nick

[Aberlour10]

helene_t, on 2015-May-18, 16:43, said:

So proportional representation is more democratic and also gives more stability. I concede that it isn't good for making fast, bold political decisions. In the second Gulf war, it took the Danish government more than half a year to decide to send a single gunboat to the gulf because every conceivable interest group needed to be heard. I can imagine that people in the Danish military find that frustrating and would prefer a system that gave a single party, maybe even a single person, power to make decisions on behalf of the state.

Disagree.

Even the 2nd Gulf War is the best example that the wide political spectrum is needed for such decissions, to avoid be fast taken in by the liers...like in this case.

If military people are frustated or not by the lack of fast decissions is completely irrelevant in a democratic state. In case of the military missions out of the own area they should be silent and wait for the democaratic elected representants of the community, even if it takes longer..

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-19, 03:19, said:

It doesn't work like that in practice, I have no idea why. I bought a flat in not a particularly nice location on the outskirts of London because I was working away from home on a contract that seemed it wasn't going to end (this was c 1998). I bought it because the repayments on a 10 year capital/interest mortgage were cheaper than the rent (I was renting an identical flat in the same block previously). When my contract did end after 3 years, I rented it out for a year and then sold it at a >50% profit.

The London housing market is stupid, and I suspect that there is no shortage of wealthy foreigners snapping up property in London which is fuelling the prices even more.

I don't see any evidence in your anecdote that property markets don't work in the way economists might expect them to. Cherdano pointed out that increasing supply would reduce prices. You quote an example where increasing demand has increased prices. Why can't both be true?

[Cyberyeti]

WellSpyder, on 2015-May-19, 06:00, said:

I don't see any evidence in your anecdote that property markets don't work in the way economists might expect them to. Cherdano pointed out that increasing supply would reduce prices. You quote an example where increasing demand has increased prices. Why can't both be true?

Because you'd expect as Cherdano says the increase in buy to let to reduce rents, it doesn't, largely because it takes houses out of the "buy to live" sector so ups the demand for rentals from people who'd like to buy. The problem is that people from abroad can be in the buy to let sector, but wouldn't be in the "buy to live" sector. If you made buy to let for overseas investors more difficult/costly, those houses would be available for "buy to live" if it was still profitable to build them.

[helene_t]

Aberlour10, on 2015-May-19, 05:45, said:

Disagree.

Even the 2nd Gulf War is the best example that the wide political spectrum is needed for such decissions, to avoid be fast taken in by the liers...like in this case.

If military people are frustated or not by the lack of fast decissions is completely irrelevant in a democratic state. In case of the military missions out of the own area they should be silent and wait for the democaratic elected representants of the community, even if it takes longer..

Oh I am personally ok with a democratic procedure for getting involved in a war that doesn't threaten our own territory. I just mentioned a consequence of the PR which some might see as disadvantageous.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-19, 03:19, said:

The London housing market is stupid, and I suspect that there is no shortage of wealthy foreigners snapping up property in London which is fuelling the prices even more.

It doesn't help that they often leave the properties empty all/most of the time.

[PeterAlan]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-18, 17:36, said:

Yes, buy-to-let is, frankly, evil ...

May I nominate this for Overstatement Of The Year?

What sort of rental market do you think there would be without buy-to-let?

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-19, 06:30, said:

Because you'd expect as Cherdano says the increase in buy to let to reduce rents, it doesn't, largely because it takes houses out of the "buy to live" sector so ups the demand for rentals from people who'd like to buy. The problem is that people from abroad can be in the buy to let sector, but wouldn't be in the "buy to live" sector. If you made buy to let for overseas investors more difficult/costly, those houses would be available for "buy to live" if it was still profitable to build them.

If you are postulating an increase in the number of houses bought to let out then what you describe is likely to happen. If you are postulating an increase in the number of houses being built, which are then bought to let, then they are not reducing the supply of houses in the buy to live part of the market. My understanding is that Cherdano was addressing the second point.

[Cyberyeti]

WellSpyder, on 2015-May-19, 08:07, said:

If you are postulating an increase in the number of houses bought to let out then what you describe is likely to happen. If you are postulating an increase in the number of houses being built, which are then bought to let, then they are not reducing the supply of houses in the buy to live part of the market. My understanding is that Cherdano was addressing the second point.

I think both things are happening, new builds are being snapped up for buy to let, and existing buildings are being sold at prices above what "buy to live" people can get mortgages for (even though they can afford the repayments, they don't have the deposits) meaning that there is a scarcity of affordable housing available to buy so the people that want to buy are forced into the rental market.

I also think this is a negative side effect of low interest rates. Buy to let can be done with cheap money, and some alternative money making schemes are hampered by the low savings rates offered.