Tuesday, Jul 06, 2010
A metaphor for the housing market?
Guardian: EAs get burned
I know some of you don't like them so you will like this....
Posted by chrisch @ 10:27 PM (1104 views) Add Comment
4 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. paul said...
And they're Italians to boot!
2. uncle tom said...
Away from the urban areas, the EA's who have only one or two offices are mostly decent professional people with a high proportion of qualified surveyors amongst their staff.
It's in the cities and the big chains where the trade seems to attract people of dubious character..
3. letthemfall said...
Another management success for the private sector. Where would we be without such innovative "challenges"?
4. Ltfsfreemarketdoppleganger said...
@LTF, I know you're are skeptical of free markets etc., but ask yourself what would you really prefer?
1. One, and only one organisation which provides goods and services, which is the same organisation that decides what goods and services there should be, and is also responsible for deciding the laws by which we all live, that you are forced to fund (under duress of imprisonment/violence), even for goods and services that you may not necessarily need, nor agree with the way in which the goods/services are provided/administrated. An organisation which is also never allowed to fail, no matter how badly it performs, and can force everyone, again under duress of imprisonment/violence, to provide additionaly funding of any amount it arbitrarily deems necessary.
2. Many organisations providing goods and services, with individuals free to choose what they consume, and whom they consume from. Individuals are free to start their own organisations which can provide goods and services that they feel there is a need for. These organisations fund their operations from volunatry contribution, and if they can no longer fund their activities then they either have to change the way in which they operate, or cease with their activities.
Do you not believe that option 1 (an organisation with total economic and law making power) is an open door to corruption, abuse of power, and abject ineptitude + misallocation of resources in the long term? (there are many historical precedents to support this).
Also, don't instantly dismiss option 2 on the basis of the current situation in the UK (assuming you are a UK citizen), as in the UK the political economy hovers between options 1 and 2.
Further, don't dismiss option 2 because of its cyclic nature (option 2 is cyclic due to change. Resources can be misallocated, but only in the short term, before they have to be re-invested elsewhere. Option 1 opens the door to long term misallocation), it also doesn't justify option 1. When option 1is chosen, to control the cyclic nature of option 2, it leads to despotism, loss of basic freedoms, wars, and long term economic ruin (again this argument can be supported by history).