close
more_vert

Property ownership also used to be seen as a multigenerational investment. The population is more restless and transient than it used to be, which means homes are treated more as a commodity and less as a place to put down roots for the long haul.

The damn house flippers of the last decade, who treated homes as a vehicle for making ridiculous fortunes, were a big part of what inflated the market to those preposterous, shaky heights.

What's needed is for all of this to swing back not to the fifties model or the hypervalued model, but somewhere in between... I don't think the migration of land ownership back into the hands of the few is a good sign at all.

Hey Dave (or anyone) this is all getting beyond my technical understanding but I've just seen a US professor saying a simple amendment to the proposal would break the deadlock - a clause specifying that the owners of toxic debts should indemnify the taxpayer against any losses above what are paid for them. The idea being that the taxpayer will be happy and the irresponsible lenders will suffer the consequences of their folly. What do you reckon, is there a fallacy there?

The fact this hasn't been done (or the alternative, the taxpayer taking out insurance against losses) strikes me as scary - because it may imply that what I suggested before is right - that the toxicity of the debts is much, much worse than appears on paper....