Originally Posted by meriwether

-What if prices must rise to exhorbitant levels for the families of the elderly/the elderly themselves?

If prices rise substantially, then the first suppliers will make large profits. Then as it becomes obvious that this sector is lucrative, many more entrants arrive to supply and the price will fall making it more affordable to people. As quantity increases prices drop.

-Why should input costs fall?

More volume means input costs drop. Productivity of inputs have increased, the supply curve shifts to the right. Economies of scale, etc.

Why would blocks, land, planning, etc prices fall for the Nursing home project?

In that specific case of input prices dropping? If the there is not enough demand at say €20,000 a year per person, but there is at €15,000 and at €15,000 the entrepreneur makes a loss, then the input prices have to reduce to below €15,000 to meet demand. That involves all the materials, labour and overheads to come down to meet that objective price level. The suppliers of the project will have to revise their quotes (including the skilled workers) to win the contract.

Do they fall across the construction sector in sync?

No, they shouldn't, markets are dynamic and in my opinion Say's Law is correct, supply creates its own demand.

Why and how?

Its just the dynamics of the laws of supply and demand. They are like gravity and have been part of the human condition since man first acknowledged the concept of scarcity.

Originally Posted by meriwether

I never tried to exclude you from this thread.

I stated I wouldn't debate the issue with you.

These are wildly different.

Once again, you are lying.

You were at the time one of the principle contributors to the thread - your refusal to engage with me was effectively an attempt to prevent me from participating in the thread in any meaningful way. It was an attempt to stifle the debate - and then you tried the same stunt when you found yourself unable to debate with myksav.

Originally Posted by meriwether

I've never seen such a retarded post in my life Myksav.

Can you reclarify?

Read back through that threading, it's in the posts.

If you cannot "get it", well that's not my problem with comprehension.

Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome

If there was a serious shortfall, why did they need tax relief?

The tax relief is always there, these schemes allowed for a wider source of investors to put in capital rathar than have it all funded by traditional sources. The shortfall that existed was because central government did not want to have to fund directly the construction of these facilities. The attraction for the investor was that the risk of investing was reduced by the tax relief that was made available to them, this arrangement also made up for the lack of security by not having any ownership of the facilities being developed. So the developer passed on the tax reliefs to mostly individuals and as such the developer did not benefit from them. They did however tap into a separate source of funding other than bank lending to build the facilities. The Government gained in that the national infrastructure that was required to facilitate the growing economy was updated witout direct capital investment on their part. Their investment was in foregoing the tax value of the reliefs passed on to individual citizens, many of whom actually borrowed money to "buy" the tax reliefs . The concept behind these schemes is good but mostly misunderstood because of cheap comments by mainly people with ulterior motives who know that the ordinary man in the street will never understand the mechanics of these schemes.

Was it something I said?