The policy isn't weak at all. It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else. What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.
The policy isn't weak at all. It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else. What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.You’re comparing policy weakness with the Corleones of Irish politics…
That doesn’t really matter when the choice is between FF/FG, who have their faults admittedly, and a crime syndicate/terror group.The policy isn't weak at all. It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else. What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.
Increasing property prices are a problem in the Western world.The policy isn't weak at all. It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else. What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.
I hope people don't fall for the empty promises being made.It's precisely the lower middle classes that work, contribute to society and don't play the system that are suffering most from FG's policy of driving up rents and property prices. They are driven into SF's dodgy arms (no pun intended) by the despair it is causing them.
I hope people don't fall for the empty promises being made.
When the Financial System collapsed in 2008 governments around the world (through their Central Banks) printed money in order to put cash back into peoples bank accounts. That's what recapitalising the banks meant; making up new money and putting it back into the current and savings accounts of ordinary people. They then printed far more money in order to continue to pay teachers and nurses and all State employees. They then kept that going in order to stimulate the economy. The net result was roughly a doubling of global money supply since 2008. In 2020 alone the US increased money supply by 26%. The net result is that those who owned capital before 2008 have seen a massive increase in the value of that capital (mainly houses and pensions) and those who do not own capital (young people) have seen a corresponding decrease in the real value of their income relative to capital values.The policy isn't weak at all. It has succeeded in what it set out to, namely to drive property prices back up to boom levels at the expense of everything else. What is "weak" is the moral compass guiding the policy.
50,000 apartments would cost north of €15 billion.Fair enough but none of this explains why the government didn't build the tens of thousands of apartments needed to preempt the housing crisis. It was aware of the democraphic trends fuelling demand, it had the money and the land, it could have used the planning system to ease height restrictions and the tax system to tackle vacant properties, dereliction and land hoarding but it did none of these. Gobal macroeconomics doesn't explain this - lack of empathy and wanting to enrich cronies and elderly middle class voters does.
it could have used the planning system to ease height restrictions and the tax system to tackle vacant properties, dereliction and land hoarding but it did none of these.
Gobal macroeconomics doesn't explain this - lack of empathy and wanting to enrich cronies and elderly middle class voters does.
That comparison is a bit inappropriate. There is huge lobbying of the government by developers and some policies (such as the shared equity scheme whose unstated aim is to fuel property prices sill further) are entirely the result of such lobbying.There's no conspiracy to enrich any cronies, that's just more divisive SF claptrap akin to the blaming the Jews for Germanys woes after the First World War
I think it's accurate and appropriate. When a minority is singled out as the source of a systemic problem it is very dangerous.That comparison is a bit inappropriate.
There is huge lobbying of the government by all sorts of vested interest groups including unions, industry bodies, banks, financiers, farmer and developers. They all cause bad things to happen.There is huge lobbying of the government by developers and some policies (such as the shared equity scheme whose unstated aim is to fuel property prices sill further) are entirely the result of such lobbying.
I would have thought developers make more money building houses than not, so I would question the effectiveness of this huge lobbying given the dearth of building activity..There is huge lobbying of the government by developers
They prefer to do less work for more as opposed to doing more work for less.I would have thought developers make more money building houses than not, so I would question the effectiveness of this huge lobbying given the dearth of building activity..
Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. Developers during the CT were building like there was no tomorrow and enjoying themselves to no endThey prefer to do less work for more as opposed to doing more work for less.
That would be the very opposite of what they have been lobbying for.They prefer to do less work for more as opposed to doing more work for less.
If so that just makes them human but what's that got to do with SF's tax proposals and building more houses?Here is the developers' preference schedule ranked in descending order:
1) More for more
2) Less for more
3) More for less
4) Less for less
Here is the developers' preference schedule ranked in descending order:
1) More for more
2) Less for more
3) More for less
4) Less for less