["and it's not relevant because the cost of debt has nothing to do with the value or affordability of something."
after just previously putting down an agruement based on wages?
Are you serious?
The cost of debt has nothing to do with value?
What do you think then was the main driver of the wideworld property boom?
surely nothing to do with cheap credit?]
Cloundnine you're conflating affordability with market value. If the cost of debt goes down, it may increase the capital cost of a property. This doesn't mean the affordability of property has remained constant, it has clearly gone down, given it costs more (certainly for anyone who chooses to remain debt free).
What has market value go to do with affordability? Mining companies, commodities were all valued at massive premiums 18 months ago. I should have used the term 'market value' (what you read), instead of 'value' (intrinsic/underyling value). If you think the two are equivalent, that's a philosophical debate I don't care to engage in, and I'll duly revoke my usage of the term. I can understand why someone would consider the two equivalent. I just don't think when, for example, a supply disruption happens and market value spikes, that one could consider purchase of that commodity 'good value'.
