Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Knut

Members
  • Content Count

    250
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Knut

  • Rank
    HPC Poster

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Berlin, Germany
  • About Me
    Fish, snow
  1. Thanks for reviving this thread Eric. I've just watched Bill Black's interview again, feels like a cosy group reunion.
  2. I think the criteria was defined by the 1961 Parker Morris guidelines. Does anybody know if those rules are still applied?
  3. I guess a good shaking always will reveal the weak. Much like, I suppose, we should applaud the existence of burglars for revealing the underfinanced or uninsured in the street that struggle to replace their furniture? Not sure how they add value to the general economy though?
  4. I'm not sure about the accusations of automatic fraud but if it's true that housing welfare is paid so unquestioningly then wouldn't a rather obvious cost saving plan for the chancellor be to appoint a rent officer to determine a state-acceptable (low) rent level for welfare situation having beforehand established tenancy protection legislation to guard against mass evictions?
  5. Sand? Hmm, maybe a good idea to borrow a Geiger counter? On the bewildering degree of goods shipping around the globe chasing nano-wages, I think I recall that a facilitator, maritime shipping, is exempt from Koyoto agreed carbon/fuel deals? Can anyone enlighten on this?
  6. I'm also with Henry Ford on this. I'm quite disturbed that countries can import cheap goods willy-nilly without much of a thought to the proper price that they should be paying. Competitively; should a UK business find it can't compete against inequitable low-wage-paying / low operating cost imported competition - then they need a degree of protection - This would take some selling! Our local producers must, for the good of society, be guarded against inequitable competition such that they can offer competitively priced products AND compensate their workers adequately. I agree with a lot of what Frank Field has to say and in much of that he is the kind of visionary leader I want to see in politics. However, his pushing of people into the lowest paid McJobs would, to me, only make sense if the minimum wage were capable of at least supporting a family et al without the necessity for state tax credit enhancement, and implicit subsiding of McIndustry
  7. An interesting angle Steve but what of, even, the single issue of the large scale acceptance of mortgage fraud that was hard-wired to explode? An insurance model works in the right circumstance but a wing-and-a-prayer ain't it. Well, 'the public' seem to readily accept things that scientist-types question. In my pleading for a rational view on house valuations with various folk I was constantly reminded of that phrase 'Never argue with an idiot as they'll beat you while they wear you down with their experiences' By the way, what's going on with the colossal # of comments on Pesto's blog? Are folk departing from here?
  8. Nice post. It would be good to have John Browett on the forum to get his vision on the future strategy.
  9. I've been commenting since the early days of internet retailing that the unintended galleries provided on the High Street and retail parks need to be factored into their supplier discount. Of course, in the meantime, rents must adjust as current profitability dictates. I am pleased that another option is being addressed by the not-well-knowingly-understood offer whereby online deals are matched on-the-spot in the shop. I hope part of the retailers’ negotiation in that deal claws some/all of that discount from the supplier who is also offering the goods on 'gallery-less' internet sites.
  10. I’m only in Bristol some of the time but it seems to be home to many whose religiosity in the house-value faith would surely draw the respect of the most hardened fundamentalist. A number of people I have spoken with could not even comprehend the idea of price falls and seem to have some kind of notion that house prices are on some kind of one-way ratchet and cannot fall, why should they?! When I ask “Where do you think the money is going to come from?” I generally get a blank look in return. As if to say ‘what’s that got to do with anything’ What's 'HA-ness' by tye way?
  11. Listening to Michael Buerk's 'The Choice' (first time I ever lasted more than 5 mins into that programme!) I found Paul Moore to be one of those people I feel compelled to disagree with even when I agree with his point of view. He was, perhaps, not the right person to be 'blowing the whistle' - if any was needed amongst the blindingly obvious and unsustainable folly that was playing itself out.
  12. As ever, I like your handle on the problem. Frank Field, too, tries to highlight the trap developed by means testing but these are tricky benefits to remove, once implemented. I think that part of the solution lies in recognising that a modest family cannot survive on commonly paid remunerations without state support in the form of tax credits and the like. And the state seems to just accept this! This has to be wrong? The state is subsidising businesses, who, if they cannot afford realistic pay are of questionable use to society. They need to raise prices such that they CAN pay the required salary. So in my view part of the answer is for factory prices et al to increase whilst state intervention *controls* inequitable competition from imports. But - neither inflationary or protectionist policies are going to muster favour!
  13. Err, yes, in much the same way that those helpful and selfless ticket touts are providing a vital and welcome service to the concert-going public. Hmmmm?
  14. Cashing in, that’s only the start of it. Banksters, ever keen to make loans, saw the need for investment mortgages by those with iffy financial history. All they needed was to conjure a mechanism, which they thought they found in MBS et al, ill-thought instruments designed to avoid the risk of such recklessness. More than cashing in, they positively nurtured reckless lending.
  15. The Mail hack should have also explained the quasi 'insurance' instruments that gave the lenders false confidence that their lending was protected, leading them to such recklessness. On a wider topic. I have come, over the years, to believe that there might be something fundamentally wrong with most all insurance. I am willing to accept it when, say, it enabled viable vital trade, as in its original shipping insurance roots. But most of the time people and institutions do not benefit from the warm-and-fuzzy feeling of being protected. No, they just increase their newly insured exposure to the same risk-(dis)comfort level that they experienced before they had any cover: They become more reckless than they were before.. I’m willing to explore this! I wonder if uninsured drivers are more careful and have fewer accidents than their legal counterparts?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.