Financial Crisis

[Naam]

it did go down and it did recover

were u asleep

I invested in UOB and Top 10 funds here and made money

i sold out just before the slide due to Thai politics

in your posting dated 12-01-2010 you did not mention which markets will be "going down again". how was anybody supposed to know you meant the Thai Micky Mouse stock market?

[Naam]

in 1984 i invested in the pension fund of the Papua New Guinea United Headhunters Union. made 17,833% profit a year later. i wonder who all were sleeping and missed this chance?

[midas]

Tick tock tick tock

Bundesbank calls for capital levy to avert government bankruptcies

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/27/us-eurozone-crisis-bundesbank-idUSBREA0Q0HV20140127

Bundesbank said on Monday that countries about to go bankrupt should draw on the private wealth of their citizens through a one-off capital levy before asking other states for help.

[mccw]

UK gov/ pensions pot a bit short of cash?

"""

People in or nearing retirement are to be given the chance to use their savings to top up their state pension.

The new scheme will allow eligible pensioners to pay in lump sums from as little £900.

In return they will see an increase in their state pension by as much as £25 a week.

The offer will apply to all existing pensioners and those retiring before April 2016.

Pensions Minister Steve Webb MP said: "One of the problems for people who have already retired is that their savings are often getting very poor rates of interest.

"What the Government is saying is if people have a bit of capital put by and they want to give it to us in the form of extra Voluntary National Insurance Contributions, we will increase their pension and that will go on for as long as they live, and it will be linked to inflation.

"And if they die and there's a surviving spouse a bit of money will go to them as well.

"It's just a new way of using your savings to boost your retirement income."

The exact amount people will have to put in is to be released later in the year, Mr Webb said.

""""

- excerpt from sky news app

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[mccw]

This is good though if actually does what it says:

""""

Thousands of pages of "crazy" guidance for businesses will be cut by up to 90%, the Prime Minister has told business leaders.

Speaking at a Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) conference, David Cameron has said the coalition is planning to scrap or change more than 3,000 regulations from the "serious to the ridiculous".

Mr Cameron said that 80,000 documents of environmental guidance will be significantly slashed, including 286 pages of regulations on hedgerow maintenance and 380 pages on waste management.

Around 100 house-building standards will also be reduced to fewer than 10.

Mr Cameron says his government will be the first in modern history to have reduced the overall burden of red tape, saving more than £850m a year.

"We will scrap over-zealous rules which dictate how to use a ladder at work or what no-smoking signs must look like," he said.

"We've changed the law so that businesses are no longer automatically liable for an accident that isn't their fault.

"And the new Deregulation Bill will exempt one million self-employed people from health and safety law altogether.

"Let me just give you a few more crazy examples dreamt up in the past by Whitehall bureaucrats.

"Employees used to be able to sue their employer if they were insulted by a customer. We've changed the Equality Act to stop that.

"Shopkeepers used to need a poison licence to sell oven cleaner - we're scrapping that."

Mr Cameron says that supporting business is crucial to the coalition's long-term economic plan.

"That is why, among so many other things, I have insisted on slashing needless regulation," he said.

"This will make it easier for you to grow, to create jobs and to help give this country the long-term security we are working towards."

Mike Cherry, FSB national policy chairman, has said it is an historic moment for the FSB."""

- sky news app

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[mccw]

This is good though if actually does what it says:

""""

Thousands of pages of "crazy" guidance for businesses will be cut by up to 90%, the Prime Minister has told business leaders.

Speaking at a Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) conference, David Cameron has said the coalition is planning to scrap or change more than 3,000 regulations from the "serious to the ridiculous".

Mr Cameron said that 80,000 documents of environmental guidance will be significantly slashed, including 286 pages of regulations on hedgerow maintenance and 380 pages on waste management.

Around 100 house-building standards will also be reduced to fewer than 10.

Mr Cameron says his government will be the first in modern history to have reduced the overall burden of red tape, saving more than £850m a year.

"We will scrap over-zealous rules which dictate how to use a ladder at work or what no-smoking signs must look like," he said.

"We've changed the law so that businesses are no longer automatically liable for an accident that isn't their fault.

"And the new Deregulation Bill will exempt one million self-employed people from health and safety law altogether.

"Let me just give you a few more crazy examples dreamt up in the past by Whitehall bureaucrats.

"Employees used to be able to sue their employer if they were insulted by a customer. We've changed the Equality Act to stop that.

"Shopkeepers used to need a poison licence to sell oven cleaner - we're scrapping that."

Mr Cameron says that supporting business is crucial to the coalition's long-term economic plan.

"That is why, among so many other things, I have insisted on slashing needless regulation," he said.

"This will make it easier for you to grow, to create jobs and to help give this country the long-term security we are working towards."

Mike Cherry, FSB national policy chairman, has said it is an historic moment for the FSB."""

- sky news app

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[mccw]

This is good though if actually does what it says:

""""

Thousands of pages of "crazy" guidance for businesses will be cut by up to 90%, the Prime Minister has told business leaders.

Speaking at a Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) conference, David Cameron has said the coalition is planning to scrap or change more than 3,000 regulations from the "serious to the ridiculous".

Mr Cameron said that 80,000 documents of environmental guidance will be significantly slashed, including 286 pages of regulations on hedgerow maintenance and 380 pages on waste management.

Around 100 house-building standards will also be reduced to fewer than 10.

Mr Cameron says his government will be the first in modern history to have reduced the overall burden of red tape, saving more than £850m a year.

"We will scrap over-zealous rules which dictate how to use a ladder at work or what no-smoking signs must look like," he said.

"We've changed the law so that businesses are no longer automatically liable for an accident that isn't their fault.

"And the new Deregulation Bill will exempt one million self-employed people from health and safety law altogether.

"Let me just give you a few more crazy examples dreamt up in the past by Whitehall bureaucrats.

"Employees used to be able to sue their employer if they were insulted by a customer. We've changed the Equality Act to stop that.

"Shopkeepers used to need a poison licence to sell oven cleaner - we're scrapping that."

Mr Cameron says that supporting business is crucial to the coalition's long-term economic plan.

"That is why, among so many other things, I have insisted on slashing needless regulation," he said.

"This will make it easier for you to grow, to create jobs and to help give this country the long-term security we are working towards."

Mike Cherry, FSB national policy chairman, has said it is an historic moment for the FSB."""

- sky news app

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[mccw]

App gone bananas

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[midas]

China's export numbers are so unbelievable that even mainstream media doesn't believe them.

GDP is not adjusted for various shadow banking schemes and other malinvestments that will eventually be written off.

GDP is not adjusted for massive amounts of air and water pollution that will at some point have to be cleaned up.

China Trade Puzzle Revived as Hong Kong Data Diverge

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-27/china-trade-puzzle-revived-as-hong-kong-data-diverge.html

[mccw]

Fed tapered another 10bl

No comments?

Some markets and currencies on a bit of a yo yo.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[SheungWan]

China's export numbers are so unbelievable that even mainstream media doesn't believe them.

GDP is not adjusted for various shadow banking schemes and other malinvestments that will eventually be written off.

GDP is not adjusted for massive amounts of air and water pollution that will at some point have to be cleaned up.

China Trade Puzzle Revived as Hong Kong Data Diverge

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-27/china-trade-puzzle-revived-as-hong-kong-data-diverge.html

For investment purposes primarily follow the HK figures and keep an eye on the HSBC flash data on Mainland China for divergence.

Also relative prices on H and A shares for Mainland China companies quoted respectively on the Hang Seng and Shanghai indices.

[midas]

Is your money safe at the bank? An economist says ‘no’ and withdraws his

Terry Burnham, former Harvard economics professor long-time critic of the Federal Reserve, argues that the Fed’s efforts to strengthen America’s banks have perversely weakened them

Last week I had over $1,000,000 in a checking account at Bank of America. Next week, I will have $10,000.

Currently, I receive zero dollars in interest on my $1,000,000. The reason I had the money in Bank of America was to keep it safe. However, the potential cost to keeping my money in Bank of America is that the bank may be unwilling or unable to return my money.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/is-your-money-safe-at-the-bank-an-economist-says-no-and-withdraws-his/

[SheungWan]

Is your money safe at the bank? An economist says ‘no’ and withdraws his

Terry Burnham, former Harvard economics professor long-time critic of the Federal Reserve, argues that the Fed’s efforts to strengthen America’s banks have perversely weakened them

Last week I had over $1,000,000 in a checking account at Bank of America. Next week, I will have $10,000.

Currently, I receive zero dollars in interest on my $1,000,000. The reason I had the money in Bank of America was to keep it safe. However, the potential cost to keeping my money in Bank of America is that the bank may be unwilling or unable to return my money.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/is-your-money-safe-at-the-bank-an-economist-says-no-and-withdraws-his/

Actually he says its OK to deposit the money in a smaller bank, but actually his rationale is that since the interest rates are low they don't sufficiently offset the perceived risk factor. I am sure Harvard is missing this guy who has gone ever so slightly bonkers. Some faculty do go off the rails. It happens.

[Wrong Turn]

Sheung Wan,

Where did this professor put his money? Where did he park it after w/drawing from the bank?

Thanks.

[SheungWan]

Sheung Wan,

Where did this professor put his money? Where did he park it after w/drawing from the bank?

Thanks.

Dunno.

[midas]

Is your money safe at the bank? An economist says ‘no’ and withdraws his

Terry Burnham, former Harvard economics professor long-time critic of the Federal Reserve, argues that the Fed’s efforts to strengthen America’s banks have perversely weakened them

Last week I had over $1,000,000 in a checking account at Bank of America. Next week, I will have $10,000.

Currently, I receive zero dollars in interest on my $1,000,000. The reason I had the money in Bank of America was to keep it safe. However, the potential cost to keeping my money in Bank of America is that the bank may be unwilling or unable to return my money.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/is-your-money-safe-at-the-bank-an-economist-says-no-and-withdraws-his/

Actually he says its OK to deposit the money in a smaller bank, but actually his rationale is that since the interest rates are low they don't sufficiently offset the perceived risk factor. I am sure Harvard is missing this guy who has gone ever so slightly bonkers. Some faculty do go off the rails. It happens.

oh I see…. Yet another nut job according to you

thinking everyone else is crazy is a symptom of schizophrenia you know?

You know full well that what he is trying to point out is that banks have changed their traditional role and are no longer paying depositors enough interest to compensate for the real risk ( not perceived ) of the bank having insufficient cash to pay back all its customers that have deposits. This lack of faith could cause a run on the banks and they will not be able to meet everyone's demand to get their money back with many customers being left without money they thought very had.

[SheungWan]

Is your money safe at the bank? An economist says ‘no’ and withdraws his

Terry Burnham, former Harvard economics professor long-time critic of the Federal Reserve, argues that the Fed’s efforts to strengthen America’s banks have perversely weakened them

Last week I had over $1,000,000 in a checking account at Bank of America. Next week, I will have $10,000.

Currently, I receive zero dollars in interest on my $1,000,000. The reason I had the money in Bank of America was to keep it safe. However, the potential cost to keeping my money in Bank of America is that the bank may be unwilling or unable to return my money.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/is-your-money-safe-at-the-bank-an-economist-says-no-and-withdraws-his/

Actually he says its OK to deposit the money in a smaller bank, but actually his rationale is that since the interest rates are low they don't sufficiently offset the perceived risk factor. I am sure Harvard is missing this guy who has gone ever so slightly bonkers. Some faculty do go off the rails. It happens.

oh I see…. Yet another nut job according to you

thinking everyone else is crazy is a symptom of schizophrenia you know?

You know full well that what he is trying to point out is that banks have changed their traditional role and are no longer paying depositors enough interest to compensate for the real risk ( not perceived ) of the bank having insufficient cash to pay back all its customers that have deposits. This lack of faith could cause a run on the banks and they will not be able to meet everyone's demand to get their money back with many customers being left without money they thought very had.

By definition the risk is in the multiplier effect. Just economics/finance 101 really. Hardly earth-shattering.

[midas]

On the affordability factors of London homes- looking at national average earnings and pointing at London going up so much is a really dumb measure because on the most obvious level a national and local are not relating the same things, it should be a local wage average to local prices in the specific area under scrutiny to see if proportionally they are a similar and then compare if proportionally the a national av earning and national av prices are similar. But then if you are talking about prime London this equation / data wouldn't be properly collate-able or relevant because so many of the properties are owned by off shore persons / entities. I read in the last Savills report that 60% of all purchases in the UK are cash, no loans, and London could well be a higher percentage than that I suspect. So the chat about property prices being nothing but a debt feuled bubble doesn't really sit too well with that. Further, unlike the US, Spain, Ireland, etc, who experienced a building boom and housing surplus, UK in fact has a chronic housing shortage and massive population growth of immigrants every year compounding the situation. Due to this demographic rents remain high and therefore most properties, other than the very high end, still offer reasonable rental investment returns and so will ensure a bottom even if first time buyer numbers are dwindling. The conditions are as they are and given the prevailing policy out look is for continuing support indefinitely from all the political parties the question is what is one to do about it? Play the game mindfully and win or moan and groan about the injustice of it all. I bought in the immediate aftermath of the crash because I saw it as a great opportunity. The system must produce more debt and inflation to survive, so buying the dips makes sense; the last was my first, undoubtably there will be future dips as well, but short of a total system collapse I don't think the UK will see any property crash like the others. I may be wrong of course and everyone should make up their own minds; but 2 things are sure 1) moaning and groaning bitterness won't get you anywhere and 2) lazy repeating of media comparisons x + y means Z is doing a disservice to yourself because it means you are not thinking properly/ critically on the topic, not taking all relevant information under consideration, nor forming a well reasons thought stream of your own. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

mccw 30 years ago I liked property as you seem to do now.

But today I don't understand the optimism about owning property anywhere in the UK (unless perhaps you're talking about a fully secure privately guarded enclave ............. that you know will always be guarded) when the price you are paying for the property today assumes that the conditions in which the property exists will remain essentially the same 30 to 40 years from now, as they are today? That is how property values are essentially arrived at isn't it? i.e the capitalisation of a notional stream of income into the future ? And in fact unless i am wrong I believe it's actually based in perpetuity, which is more like 50 or 60 years?

But as hard as I try I just can't see the conditions in the UK in the future being anywhere like they are today and surely that is bound to affect property values?

Unless and until somebody can start addressing even at the very, very least a way to stop the haemorrhaging of debt accumulation and meaningful reversal in joblessness and probably more importantly, payment of meaningful incomes, how can a property realistically be worth what you pay for it today when the easy credit dries up?

And it's not just about the consequential difficulties that will be imposed on potential buyers but also of equal importance the potential difficulties imposed on central and local governments to be able to continue to provide essential services to enable you to use your property effectively and feel safe and secure in your property ?.

In other words, extrapolating say 30 or 40 years time from today what happens to property values generally if the same trends occur in the UK as has happened in places in the USA , such as Detroit and some of the other failed cities when there is no more money left to pay just for basic maintenance of law and order?

I would bet a considerable sum of money that these are the conditions that will prevail Unfortunately

an example of this now in USA......

You Can Buy A House For One Dollar Or Less In Economically Depressed Cities All Over America

many of these homes are in very high crime neighborhoods. In some of these areas, people will literally rip up and carry away anything that is not bolted down.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/you-can-buy-a-house-for-one-dollar-or-less-in-economically-depressed-cities-all-over-america

[SheungWan]

On the affordability factors of London homes- looking at national average earnings and pointing at London going up so much is a really dumb measure because on the most obvious level a national and local are not relating the same things, it should be a local wage average to local prices in the specific area under scrutiny to see if proportionally they are a similar and then compare if proportionally the a national av earning and national av prices are similar. But then if you are talking about prime London this equation / data wouldn't be properly collate-able or relevant because so many of the properties are owned by off shore persons / entities. I read in the last Savills report that 60% of all purchases in the UK are cash, no loans, and London could well be a higher percentage than that I suspect. So the chat about property prices being nothing but a debt feuled bubble doesn't really sit too well with that. Further, unlike the US, Spain, Ireland, etc, who experienced a building boom and housing surplus, UK in fact has a chronic housing shortage and massive population growth of immigrants every year compounding the situation. Due to this demographic rents remain high and therefore most properties, other than the very high end, still offer reasonable rental investment returns and so will ensure a bottom even if first time buyer numbers are dwindling. The conditions are as they are and given the prevailing policy out look is for continuing support indefinitely from all the political parties the question is what is one to do about it? Play the game mindfully and win or moan and groan about the injustice of it all. I bought in the immediate aftermath of the crash because I saw it as a great opportunity. The system must produce more debt and inflation to survive, so buying the dips makes sense; the last was my first, undoubtably there will be future dips as well, but short of a total system collapse I don't think the UK will see any property crash like the others. I may be wrong of course and everyone should make up their own minds; but 2 things are sure 1) moaning and groaning bitterness won't get you anywhere and 2) lazy repeating of media comparisons x + y means Z is doing a disservice to yourself because it means you are not thinking properly/ critically on the topic, not taking all relevant information under consideration, nor forming a well reasons thought stream of your own. Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

mccw 30 years ago I liked property as you seem to do now.

But today I don't understand the optimism about owning property anywhere in the UK (unless perhaps you're talking about a fully secure privately guarded enclave ............. that you know will always be guarded) when the price you are paying for the property today assumes that the conditions in which the property exists will remain essentially the same 30 to 40 years from now, as they are today? That is how property values are essentially arrived at isn't it? i.e the capitalisation of a notional stream of income into the future ? And in fact unless i am wrong I believe it's actually based in perpetuity, which is more like 50 or 60 years?

But as hard as I try I just can't see the conditions in the UK in the future being anywhere like they are today and surely that is bound to affect property values?

Unless and until somebody can start addressing even at the very, very least a way to stop the haemorrhaging of debt accumulation and meaningful reversal in joblessness and probably more importantly, payment of meaningful incomes, how can a property realistically be worth what you pay for it today when the easy credit dries up?

And it's not just about the consequential difficulties that will be imposed on potential buyers but also of equal importance the potential difficulties imposed on central and local governments to be able to continue to provide essential services to enable you to use your property effectively and feel safe and secure in your property ?.

In other words, extrapolating say 30 or 40 years time from today what happens to property values generally if the same trends occur in the UK as has happened in places in the USA , such as Detroit and some of the other failed cities when there is no more money left to pay just for basic maintenance of law and order?

I would bet a considerable sum of money that these are the conditions that will prevail Unfortunately

an example of this now in USA......

You Can Buy A House For One Dollar Or Less In Economically Depressed Cities All Over America

many of these homes are in very high crime neighborhoods. In some of these areas, people will literally rip up and carry away anything that is not bolted down.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/you-can-buy-a-house-for-one-dollar-or-less-in-economically-depressed-cities-all-over-america

Who wants to live in the sticks anyway? Greenwich Village still looks nice.

[mccw]

Interesting report on the sky news app.

Horribly over optimistic spin- calling repaired deficit to pre crash levels some kind of fix but ignoring the debt and growing debt, never mind mention of ever reaching a surplus, which would only then represent the start of any fix of balance sheet in my view (unless you count the QE as a fix/ debt with out interest paying off old debt baring a cost)

Second point are some choice figures in there:

Like the top 1% contributing over 27% of the totfl tax take! Oh the injustice? Ha

And the next

"""""

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has raised the prospect of an end to the ever-increasing scale of Government spending cuts, saying that the austerity plans put in place by the coalition may already go further than is needed to bring its books back to balance.

In its closely-watched Green Budget, the Government spending think tank said that even if the most pessimistic forecasters are proved right on the economy, the coalition's fiscal plans will repair the damage done to the public finances by the Great Recession.

The verdict is among the most positive yet delivered by the IFS - although it warned that there remains some uncertainty over whether it will be easy to implement the cuts planned for the coming years, since only 40% of them had been carried out.

IFS Director Paul Johnson said: "Even if the most pessimistic forecasters are right, then the damage done by the recession will be fixed - in terms of the deficit, not the debt."

The forecast marks a watershed moment in the recovery, since the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), and the IFS itself, have tended to increase their estimate for the scale of spending cuts needed at almost every Budget and Autumn Statement since 2010.

It is based on the notion that the public finances will improve in the coming years as the economy bounces back.

The IFS said that the impact of the cuts was likely to be greater than broadly appreciated - particularly when population growth was borne in mind.

It said that while overall public service spending was due to fall 1.7% per year between 2010 and 2018 (dropping, eventually, to the lowest level since 1948), the cuts per person amounted to 2.4% a year.

It added that by 2018/19, real age-adjusted health spending per person would be 9% lower than in 2010/11.

Oxford Economics, the consultancy which contributed the economic forecasts to the Green Budget, forecast strong growth in the coming years, with last year's 1.9% GDP growth likely to be revised up and the economy expanding by 2.6% this year.

However it warned that so far the recovery had been "horribly imbalanced."

The IFS said that it did not think that the UK was facing a housing bubble, though it warned that it was more likely in London. It recommended reducing the cap on the Government's Help to Buy scheme from its current £600,000 level.

The Green Budget also pointed out that the Government has become increasingly reliant on the wealthy for the lion's share of tax revenues. It said that the share of income tax contributed by the top 1% of taxpayers has risen from 11% in 1979 to 27.5% in 2011/12.

It added that in 2012/13 Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea alone contributed a full 15% of the UK's entire stamp duty revenue.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[mccw]

Taking the above in to account can it be said that encouraging more 1% types to move to the uk would be a good idea and that a London prop boom is good for the countries books. They're carrying the rest of the uk scrounges and lay abouts practically- the ones who love to moan about the injustice, how ironic

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[mccw]

"""The world's biggest health and beauty retailer is examining a relocation of its headquarters to the UK as part of a tentative plan to list its shares on the London Stock Exchange.

Sky News has learnt that AS Watson is considering the idea as it assesses whether to pursue a joint primary listing in Hong Kong and London.

Under rules supervised by the UK Listing Authority, transferring its corporate headquarters to Britain would make it easier to qualify for a premium listing of its shares.""

-sky news app.

These are the kind of smart incentives that boost economy and it's sustainability. Putty the uk couldn't do something like Thai lands preferential tax treatment to encourage on shore manufacturing. Would be against EU rules I expect.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[mmh8]

I expect he could buy a taxi license or two and make more money than the 0% interest at lower risk

[mccw]

It's said the Thai rice pledging scheme was/is a terrible corrupt waste of money at 4bl USD cost; how about this then...

"""

Corruption in the EU costs the economy 120 billion euro per year - equivalent to the EUs annual budget, EU Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem said when presenting a new report, adding that there are no corruption-free zones in Europe.

"""

- excerpt from rt app

Rt but note it's quoting an EU commission report

[midas]

Wages need to double to keep pace with UK house prices

If salaries had kept pace with house price inflation in the last 15 years, you would be paid more than twice as much now.

That would mean the average wage would be more than £55,000, according to housing charity Shelter, rather than the official £25,932

Shelter’s research suggests that there is not a single area in the country where wage and house price inflation have remained aligned. Meanwhile official figures have revealed that more than 3.3 million 20-to-34-year-olds were living with their parents last year in the UK

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/wages-need-to-double-to-keep-pace-with-house-prices-9120049.html

[mccw]

^

Flawed and simplistic thinking

[mccw]

Shelters report that is ^

I like your posting of many links though Midas.

[midas]

^

Flawed and simplistic thinking

mccw I would be genuinely interested to know why you think it is flawed and simplistic. UK it's by no means the only place where this is happening after so much a money has been pumped into the system without addressing job creation............... and the number of unemployed are a dampener on salary and wage levels.

I am fascinated by this predicament because I simply can't see how there can be any meaningful growth in remuneration levels. So how is this going to be reconciled when house prices are propped up at such a ridiculously high level in some areas of the UK ?

[mccw]

Hi Midas

If they are talking purely statistically to match what the ratio was x year ago to today then that's one thing; but wages don't "need" to be at the same statistic ratio, do they? Why would they? I'm sure countries across the world have very different ratios and are not all standard. But apart from this here are another few reasons why there is no "need" for x higher wages:

1) not all buyers are dependant on wages. ie BTL, investors, wealthy etc.

2) interest rates have come down at the same time as prices going up. So affordability on a percentage cost of income monthly is no so dramatic a change as the headline price.

3) the higher asking deposits are being found and funded now by either government help to buy or parents property or personal past bought property sources wealth from property price increases over the last 10, 20, 30 + years. The increasing prices can almost feed in to themselves allowing the existing property class to leverage and re-leverage to buy more/ push up prices further.

4) averages are blunt tools. Hackney for example has thousands living in council estates, so low average wages, while the high average property price would be across private housing much owned by investors of the higher wage earners like the graphics, designers etc new trendies who live there- "trustafarians" too I read some were called, that is hippy rich kids living in and off properties owned by trust funds.

5) pondering where the line is myself on rent and mortgage affordability to other living cost essentials; but think there is still a good bit of slack that can be squeezed out yet. Less gadgets, games, good waste, booze, etc etc discretionary spending.

6) A monthly mortgage amount is still much cheaper than a rental amount so it makes sense to be a home owner.

7) if rent = 30% of income and mortgage 20% currently. No reason for those %s to be fixed. Could just as we'll be half 40% and 50%. See points 5 & 6.

Many reasons- totally rubbish simplistic nonsense report/ journalism.

Shelter actively support and teach scum bags how to game the system and go with out paying rent as long as possibly, gaining housing benefits to their pockets, and ruining many first time investors years of hard work and saving to get to such a point as the first BTL. Leaving a trail of fourclosures , ruined lives and squatters in their idiot wrong way around thinking- advise- bla bla bla. Homeless outreach aside they have got it all wrong. I used to give them money every month as I thought they were helping with soup kitchens n stuff but then found out the truth of all this salaries for people writing endless bullshit reports like this, lobbying government for even more tenant rights and advising scum how to legally rob people and defaults the tax payer. They're parasites living off the good will owns cash of the uninformed public caught up by the sweet sales pitch by the ladies with clip boards on street corners. Oxfam is a little better but all those big charities are basically businesses with charity as a point to get your money. Lots of them pay over million pounds to their top executives. Bunch of self feeding parasites same like local councils and government generally

I no longer give to such opperations but to charities like water aid & operation smile where the funds actually go where they should I think by my investergations.

[mccw]

Bit of a tangent but reflects the parasitic nature of modern western system:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10232004/72-per-cent-increase-in-executives-paid-over-100k-a-year-at-best-known-charities.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385754/Fury-charity-boss-says-donors-dont-mind-paying-figure-salaries.html

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk