4 ms·
I don't see a byline for the article, so I can't Google to see what sort of connections to the UK real estate industry that the author has. Oh well.
by maxander 10y ago
I don't see a byline for the article, so I can't Google to see what sort of connections to the UK real estate industry that the author has. Oh well.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Osmium 10y agoThe Economist famously doesn't use bylines: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-1 http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/ec... https://andreaskluth.org/2008/11/20/why-the-economist-has-no-bylines/ https://andreaskluth.org/2008/11/20/why-the-economist-has-no... Generally, I imagine they're reputable enough that they should disclose any conflicts of interest, but who knows...
- monk_e_boy 10y agoHa! Cynical! Personally I think raising taxes on second homes, rentals, etc would free up a lot of housing to purchase. Do we want to do that? Are people happy renting and not buying? I'm not sure.
- conistonwater 10y agoWouldn't it be better to address the article on its own merits, whatever those may be, instead of looking for the author trying to make an ad hominem argument?
- glomph 10y agoIt is difficult to read past the potential for bias here though.
- djmobley 10y agoThe profit maximising situation for the large UK housebuilders is not one in which planning restrictions are lifted and the price of land collapses. Why would they be trying to advance these policies?
- toyg 10y agoYou are mixing landowner profits and developer profits. Developers want low prices for new land in greenfield areas that will make the resulting houses appealing. Landowners want high prices but they also want to actually be able to sell - it doesn't matter how much your land is theoretically worth if nobody wants to buy it because they can't build on it.
- djmobley 10y ago1) House builders are big land owners; 2) The price of the land is passed on to property buyers in its entirety.