PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Invierno 2025

[pianista]

A mi también me gusta leer a asustadisimos aunque ppcc era más interesante, y he disfrutado mucho de muchas lecturas estos últimos 20 añitos, pero acertar, lo que se dice acertar, ni las dos veces del reloj este averiado en 20 años.
Ni autonomizazo, ni ladrillazo, ni pensionazo,,,no recuerdo el otro,,, ni salgan de la Bolsa pero ya ya ya,,, ni ná de ná,,, decir que el PP no es capitalista ni de derechas es una obviedad como un castillo que se sabe desde siempre y decir que el PSOE y sus socios impresentables es la solución ya es para echarse las manos a la cabeza carcajada incluida,,, pero vamos, que me gusta leerle y esperemos que algún día esta indecente estafa que es la vivienda acabe, pues también. No olvidar que se sustituirá por otra estafa, probablemente igual o peor

[Derby]

https://www.ft.com/content/05faba7d-cb8e-470b-b35f-271517b99d92

How London unwittingly killed housebuilding

A perfect storm of policy and regulatory headwinds has slowed new construction to a trickle


© FT montage/Getty Images

In order to alleviate its acute housing affordability crisis, London has been set a target of building 88,000 new homes per year over the next decade. Last year construction started on just 5,891 — 94 per cent below target, a 75 per cent year-on-year decline, the steepest drop in the country, the lowest tally since records began almost 40 years ago and the lowest figure for any major city in the developed world this century.

Housebuilding debates can quickly descend into battles between competing diagnoses from left and right, with greedy developers pitted against social housing. But here the crunch is afflicting both market and public sector actors alike, with both sides citing the same issues. New starts by private developers were down 79 per cent over the past two years, compared with collapses of 85 and 94 per cent for affordable and council housing respectively, with work started on just 100 council-funded homes in 2024-25 by one estimate.



The most acute issue is a rapidly and hugely increased regulatory toll in the wake of the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire. This has taken two forms: significant costs of upgrading existing homes to new standards, and the introduction of a new body — the Building Safety Regulator (BSR) — which has added a lengthy and exacting step between planning approval and starting construction, with inadequate resources quickly creating a logjam.

This has placed a particular squeeze on the finances of affordable housing providers, who cite “additional costs and delays as a result of new building safety regulations” as a key reason for low build rates, leaving £120mn worth of council-funded homes on hold. Tens of thousands of provisionally approved homes in the capital are waiting on supplementary review by the BSR, which green-lights only a third of cases and takes an average of eight months to do so. These delays — at a point when developers have typically already poured large sums into a project — add huge financing overheads, in some cases expanding projects’ overall cost by more than 15 per cent.

Adding to these are enhanced environmental regulations that are far more stringent than those in other European countries and levies requiring developers to invest in local infrastructure. Planning applications for London apartment blocks now frequently include hundreds of documents and thousands of pages, and the combined impact has sent housebuilding costs rising far more quickly than underlying construction inflation, and far more steeply than in other cities internationally.



A less discussed factor has been the drying up of overseas and other buy-to-let investment in London property, always a critical source of financing for a market where artificial space restrictions such as the greenbelt mean most development must be high-rise, capital-intensive and financially risky.

Such investors are frequently blamed for worsening affordability, but a 2017 report led by the LSE’s Kath Scanlon found that these investors “had a positive net effect on the availability to Londoners of new housing, both private and affordable”, warning that “there would be real costs to the London housing market if overseas investment . . . began to feel unwelcome”. That is precisely what has happened over a decade of increased charges on owners of second homes and foreign investors.

A third factor is increasing demand for brownfield sites for non-residential uses such as logistics warehouses, and a fourth is stagnating incomes and rising mortgage rates imposing a ceiling on locals’ capacity to pay the higher rents or prices needed to make elevated construction costs viable.

The result is 281,000 unbuilt homes where approval has been received but construction is financially unviable. In one emblematic case, a developer bought a dilapidated London warehouse, received approval to convert it into 56 homes, but withdrew when it became clear the project would make a loss due to spiralling financing costs during the protracted BSR review process. It was sold to a self-storage company for whom the economics were more favourable, just one of a slew of recent examples of logistics firms buying homebuilding sites.

Most steps that led here could be defended in isolation. Nobody is against high building standards, safety or support for local infrastructure. But botched implementation and a failure to anticipate how policies would interact have created a perverse situation where it is no longer economical to build homes in one of the world’s most prosperous and desirable cities.

[muyuu]

https://xcancel.com/Jongonzlz/status/2022240049086050569

Jon González
@Jongonzlz
11h
Interesante este alarde de sinceridad en materia de pensiones de dos de los responsables de la Seguridad Social de anteriores gobiernos tanto de PP como de PSOE. Lo que subyace:

"Las pensiones están garantizadas". Pero no es una garantía 'financiera', es una garantía política.

El baby boom concentra voto, participación y capacidad de presión. En una democracia envejecida, eso importa más que cualquier cuadro actuarial. El sistema se ajustará para sostener el nivel de las pensiones actuales porque existe un bloque electoral decisivo que no permitirá su deterioro. Y se hará a costa de todo lo demás si es necesario. Punto.

Esto no digo yo; lo están diciendo ellos, leed la noticia.

¿Dónde se aplicará entonces el esfuerzo? Tres puntos (se les escapan unos cuantos):

1) Los jóvenes, durante su etapa activa, sufrirán mayores imposiciones al trabajo, especialmente por aumentos adicionales de las cotizaciones.
2) Cuando les llegue el momento de jubilarse, lo harán en peores condiciones que las actuales y más tarde.
3) La contributividad de esas pensiones (la relación entre lo cotizado y lo percibido) se reducirá, para "achatarlas" (mayores mínimas, menores máximas).

Y al final invocan a la 'solidaridad generacional' exigida, en un contexto demográfico que ha invertido las tornas.

No estamos ante un colapso del sistema. Estamos ante una redistribución política del ajuste. Las pensiones no se sostienen porque cuadren las cuentas, sino porque cuadran los votos.

La pregunta no es si las pensiones están garantizadas. La pregunta es ¿para quién, en qué condiciones y a qué precio? Es la ruptura del contrato social.

El Confidencial
@elconfidencial
12h
Exministros del PSOE y PP avisan de que la edad de jubilación deberá retrasarse para sostener las pensiones.

El aumento del gasto en pensiones obligará a adoptar más más ajustes a futuro, incluyendo la subida de las cotizaciones
 dozz.es/tad1e1

Feb 13, 2026 · 9:22 AM UTC