Amiga500The F-35, for all its problems, seems to be running smoother than the Sukhoi T-50.
Quicker =/= Smoother.
If you are using a few custom-build prototypes, hand modifying each and iterating toward your optimal solution, you aren’t having to retool a wide assembly line with every design change.
5 years after first flight, there were >90 F-35 flying. So every design change results in expensive tooling changes across multiple tool-sets.
Different philosophies.
Amiga500You are grasping at staws. The number of flighthours over 5 years + is simply horrible, no way around it.
It may not be quite as bad as it first appears if these are supposed to be the equivalent of say, the YF-22 or F-22 and the X-35 not F-35.
Or somewhere in between.
But yes, applying concurrent practices and assuming these are early edition service aircraft rather than prototypes, the program is at a snail’s pace.
Although the Russians may have seen just how much trouble concurrency caused with F-35 and are avoiding it.
Amiga500Privatising a sector comprising 2.4 million properties with a value of approximately £900 billion! With what exactly? Ah, yes of course we can easily borrow another £900 billion……la la land – again!
As I said to Creaking Door, its done slowly over time.
I would envisage that initially houses will be acquired by first-time buyers[1] looking to have their own house. As the years roll on, [1] will be complemented by [2] and eventually [3] the government would then start to get involved in buying houses, which can then be rent-to-buy for those that are working, but cannot save for deposits or afford commercial interest rates (not in groups [1]-[3]).
If you are on housing-benefits, you cannot be essentially handed a house for free, that would be madness.
[1]of medium wealth
[2]of low to medium wealth
[3]of low wealth
obviously [1],[2] and [3] are all not reliant on benefits for their wealth.
Amiga500Privatising a sector comprising 2.4 million properties with a value of approximately £900 billion! With what exactly? Ah, yes of course we can easily borrow another £900 billion……la la land – again!
As I said to Creaking Door, its done slowly over time.
I would envisage that initially houses will be acquired by first-time buyers[1] looking to have their own house. As the years roll on, [1] will be complemented by [2] and eventually [3] the government would then start to get involved in buying houses, which can then be rent-to-buy for those that are working, but cannot save for deposits or afford commercial interest rates (not in groups [1]-[3]).
If you are on housing-benefits, you cannot be essentially handed a house for free, that would be madness.
[1]of medium wealth
[2]of low to medium wealth
[3]of low wealth
obviously [1],[2] and [3] are all not reliant on benefits for their wealth.
Amiga500How can it be a zero-sum investment if millions of people end-up owning something that they cannot ‘afford’; something the government doesn’t own yet provided on easy terms?
As I pointed out before, it has to be done over a long timescale, decades, to avoid a hard shock and to reduce prices to a point where most can afford.
Unless you actually think that its first time buyers with relatively little liquidity that drive the price of houses?
And what about those on income-support or housing-benefit; in those cases the government pays for somebody to rent-to-buy a property from the government…
They don’t get possession of the house. Obviously.
Furthermore, enforcing the coupling up of personal loans and credit cards to assets against those acts as a further benefit to people of being in work rather than being “better-off on the dole”.
Amiga500How can it be a zero-sum investment if millions of people end-up owning something that they cannot ‘afford’; something the government doesn’t own yet provided on easy terms?
As I pointed out before, it has to be done over a long timescale, decades, to avoid a hard shock and to reduce prices to a point where most can afford.
Unless you actually think that its first time buyers with relatively little liquidity that drive the price of houses?
And what about those on income-support or housing-benefit; in those cases the government pays for somebody to rent-to-buy a property from the government…
They don’t get possession of the house. Obviously.
Furthermore, enforcing the coupling up of personal loans and credit cards to assets against those acts as a further benefit to people of being in work rather than being “better-off on the dole”.
Amiga500Right -if house prices stagnate builders dont built.
No, developers won’t build massive new sites unless they get people wanting to buy the houses to live in them (not buy to rent).
People still replace dwellings, so builders will still be employed, and it will be on a sustainable level.
However mass migration stays the same and people wanting houses exceeds the numbers of available houses. Therefore house prices rise due to demand.
Indeed, but given net migration was 0.5% of population in 2014, and migrating families will occupy less houses /person than the indigenous population, its not massive pressure.
Put this way, migration is not a massive driver of house price rises.
Couple all of this with wage increases and the cost of living and its clear that builders cannot be expected to produce houses for the same price as the 1970’s .
I think you need to try and understand just what is the material cost of building a house. Excluding the land, 200K gets you something akin to a mansion.
Therefore cool the market and reduce the number of houses built and you will very quickly start an inflationary track that will be like a rocket !
Rubbish. About 800,000 homes in England are sitting empty/vacant right now and furthermore, there is no moratorium on new build, just a limit on renting that build.
Amiga500Right -if house prices stagnate builders dont built.
No, developers won’t build massive new sites unless they get people wanting to buy the houses to live in them (not buy to rent).
People still replace dwellings, so builders will still be employed, and it will be on a sustainable level.
However mass migration stays the same and people wanting houses exceeds the numbers of available houses. Therefore house prices rise due to demand.
Indeed, but given net migration was 0.5% of population in 2014, and migrating families will occupy less houses /person than the indigenous population, its not massive pressure.
Put this way, migration is not a massive driver of house price rises.
Couple all of this with wage increases and the cost of living and its clear that builders cannot be expected to produce houses for the same price as the 1970’s .
I think you need to try and understand just what is the material cost of building a house. Excluding the land, 200K gets you something akin to a mansion.
Therefore cool the market and reduce the number of houses built and you will very quickly start an inflationary track that will be like a rocket !
Rubbish. About 800,000 homes in England are sitting empty/vacant right now and furthermore, there is no moratorium on new build, just a limit on renting that build.
Amiga500What you are suggesting is effectively nationalising the private rental sector.
Yip.
As for the supposed benefits you suggest these could not be achieved without a massive injection of (borrowed) public money that the return would not justify
Why the massive injection of public money?
The gradual reduction in house prices would allow people that otherwise couldn’t to buy, and most of the rest to buy off public bodies in rent-to-buy. Depending on interest rates, the rent would cover the interest payments (and a bit of capital) anyway. So its a zero-sum investment.
Amiga500What you are suggesting is effectively nationalising the private rental sector.
Yip.
As for the supposed benefits you suggest these could not be achieved without a massive injection of (borrowed) public money that the return would not justify
Why the massive injection of public money?
The gradual reduction in house prices would allow people that otherwise couldn’t to buy, and most of the rest to buy off public bodies in rent-to-buy. Depending on interest rates, the rent would cover the interest payments (and a bit of capital) anyway. So its a zero-sum investment.
Amiga500There’s something about housebuilding that the politicians will never address.
There is no need for anyone to have an empty house (beyond recently inherited) or a house they rent out. Renting should be solely within the remit of a public body with rent to buy schemes encouraged.
But, they’ll never address that elephant in the room.
Just imagine what that (after the initial shock in the system) would do for:
– improved social mobility.
– having investments made in enterprise rather than property, which encourages jobs.
– reduced mortgage payments meaning greater purchasing power, which encourages consumer spending.
– reducing pressure on housing availability.
Of course, in the short term, there would be a massive shock, people who have funneled loads of money into property would be essentially wiped out. But, the longer term benefits would outweigh the short term pain and I feel that its something that the government should be looking to bring in. It would need to be gradually done over something like a 30 year timeframe (through reducing the number of houses anyone can rent) to mitigate against the shock.
Amiga500There’s something about housebuilding that the politicians will never address.
There is no need for anyone to have an empty house (beyond recently inherited) or a house they rent out. Renting should be solely within the remit of a public body with rent to buy schemes encouraged.
But, they’ll never address that elephant in the room.
Just imagine what that (after the initial shock in the system) would do for:
– improved social mobility.
– having investments made in enterprise rather than property, which encourages jobs.
– reduced mortgage payments meaning greater purchasing power, which encourages consumer spending.
– reducing pressure on housing availability.
Of course, in the short term, there would be a massive shock, people who have funneled loads of money into property would be essentially wiped out. But, the longer term benefits would outweigh the short term pain and I feel that its something that the government should be looking to bring in. It would need to be gradually done over something like a 30 year timeframe (through reducing the number of houses anyone can rent) to mitigate against the shock.
Amiga500The house construction industry was at probably its highest output during the Blair years.
But it was never sustainable.
If its not sustainable, its no use.
Amiga500The house construction industry was at probably its highest output during the Blair years.
But it was never sustainable.
If its not sustainable, its no use.
Amiga500The most sustained period of house price growth in the U.K in the last forty years was 1997-2007 .
Exactly! The idea of this being a good thing beggars belief.
Just think for a moment of all the negatives associated with an inflated property market. Then name one positive aside from easy money for those with the assets to stand over the mortgages 2 or more houses.
Sign In
