Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by doahh

  1. So a projected total of ~90,000 per year. A rise of ~19,800 per year and almost certainly climbing. Good news
  2. In the USA in 1873 the people were prevented from taking their silver to the mint to have it converted into coinage. 1896 was when Bryan made his 'cross of gold speech' in the run up to the presidential elections. It was the ending of the bimetallic standard that caused so much hardship for the farmers and industry workers at the time. The bankers had all the gold when silver was demonetised and then refused to lend it out causing a lovey contraction in the money supply. Greenspan as an apparent historian of money should know much better - unless he is just another banker shrill ... he sounds like a total tosspot making comments like that as if those times were all champagne and roses. You do raise an interesting point about it being a credit based system. I had always assumed that a gold standard would be debt free, but that does depend upon who owns the gold at the time, and how much they charge for its use.
  3. I was at a Positive Money talk a couple of weeks back where the idea of full employment was brought up. The idea was that it could be paid from government deficit (i.e. QE). Taxation would then remove the excess from the system when/if the economy recovered. Any unemployed person would be given a job until they found one in the private sector and they could tend parks, pick-up litter etc. The idea of not issuing bonds based on that money would prevent it becoming debt based. Sounded like an idea worth more discussion to me. In contradiction to that which I wrote above, this is a good point. The QE entering the econemy would eventually end up at the banks who would fractional reserve it out at interest anyway. You would therefore still need to remove the power of the banks to create debt. Obvious solution would be to create an alternative currency which cannot be fractionally reserved and is legal for the payment of taxes. That however, would be a far harder sell and with Corbyn being attacked for having 1970's sytle policies the idea of going back to the 1950-60's style policy of full employment would stand little chance.
  4. A more stratified data set in the under 35's would have been interesting. I would guess that the under 30's were the ones who were least likely to vote, that said over 1/3rd did and that seems pretty good to me. I didn't pay any attention to politics until I was past 30. The ones who are complaining vociferously about the result will most likely be the ones who did vote and as such are not necessarily representative.
  5. Lot of sympathy for the buyers because they are all worth it. Hold on - maybe they shouldn't rent their freakin' car just so they look weathly! As for the dealers, sympathy for a used car salesman? How modern!
  6. Thanks. From the link (published in November 2015): So for the last 18 months the majority of lending was BTL which for now seems to have slumped.
  7. Almost enough to put a smile on my avatar. Can't remember if it is 80% of new build are bought by BTL or 80% of all residential mortgages, but if the latter and landlords don't come back into the market over the next few months then that would mean a serious fall in buyers. Maybe I'll buy shares in a popcorn company soon.
  8. They moved in with one of parents which suggests that they have family in the area and were possibly born there. Are you suggesting that society is better off when people are forced to move away from friends and family? Personally I think that society should lower the Tucking cost of housing!
  9. Interesting that he thinks we are in the bull trap of graph that Count (interesting update by the way) posted above. I thought we were there in 2012 and would now think that we are nearing the top of the recovery now. I am very much looking forward to fear and will love the sound of DESPAIR!
  10. Good post OP and thanks for the summary. Agreed. While it is nice to hear that a think-tank now has the same view that we do, it is way to little, way to late, and where the Tuck were they when the problem was developing into this monster that is destroying peoples lives? They are paid to think but it seems they need the situation spelled out for them first. What is the point in these people when they are so, so slow to come to a conclusion? I would not be surprised to find they were stoking the fire up until a few years ago and making a nice profit for themselves in the meantime. I tried to find some of there old housing reports but was unsuccessful.
  11. I always wanted to live on top of a public toilet carpark. It is great that there so much storage space compared to those claustrophobic new builds.
  12. The nail in the head of that nutshell is particularly attractive.
  13. 2500Fr (£1755) per month. I looked up food prices and found the minimum recommeded cost per day for 2400 calories is 600Fr. Addtional (http://*******.com/avfdscx - based on living in Zurich): Basic Health insurance = 250Fr Furnished 2-bed flat = 2600Fr Electricity = 325Fr Maybe 25% cheaper if not in Zurich(?) so: 3150Fr * 75% = 2362Fr Fag packet total: ~3000Fr. So if house prices weren't so ridiculous then you could probaly live of it - I managed to link to house prices after all, I'm just like the Daily Mail ma! Time to leave the EU? The idea is gaining momentum slowly. I don't think it will be stoppable in the long run (50 years) with the levels of automation that are coming on line. A shame that only 25% of them support it. Absolutly the way to go in my opinion.
  14. It's true, the banks don't have enough protection with bailouts, low interest rates and future bailins. The tenents get to easy a ride and MUST be made to be liable for ever! Ra-ha-ha-ha-ha! Now where did mini-me go?
  15. Shock, horror - the media reporting that a primary driver of house prices is the amount the bank will lend to the sheeple.
  16. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-21/407000-workers-stunned-pension-fund-proposes-60-cuts-treasury-says-not-enough
  17. I liked CruickShanks coments - or Cruel as one poster called them.
  18. I gave up reading half way through as it is so bizarre but this stood out as an example of a total idiot: Why not broadcast what a huge profit you have mede for doing tuck all? It's not as if I will find it objectionable and just make a far lower offer! House prices only ever go up!
  19. Sounds like Steve Pateman could give a professional satirist a run for their money. Thanks God we have people like him in positions of responsibility or we would be really scewed.
  20. Bank bailouts, the handling of Greece which seemed to me to be a serious nail in the coffin of democracy, the installing of technocrats and the Cyprus bail-ins - the EU does not work for me and I will be voting to leave. A poorly organised infrastructure that was doomed to failure before it started due to disparate economies without fiscal transfer. I would prefer to jump rather than be pushed when it finally comes crashing down of its own accord, at least that way the UK can try to engineer a soft landing.
  21. I explained this to a friend whom I have learned an awful lot from other the years about politics and economics, and hence I consider him to be very clever. I was amazed when he came out with arguments claiming that he didn't pay relitivly more moving from his 1 bed + box room to a 4-bed house. Never underestimate how far people will delude themselves into believing that this sort of issue isn't a problem. Nice to see it written down but I think it could do with being clearer still. I know this argument verbatism but still had to think to confirm its accuracy.
  22. Maybe Osborne is under orders from his masters to trigger the bail-in clauses to get the next wave of cash from the peons.
  23. Good to see this in the main stream media. I have to admit to swearing at some of the people on there who thought that they were doing us a favour by owning vast swathes of land. Another argument seemed to be that it was the end of democracy if there rights to own their property and keep it for their own use were infringed upon in any way. I think they simply wanted to keep that which they had not earned and use it for speculation, but didn't have the guts to say so in public. One of the most interesting aspects was that they seemed to be talking about forcing them to sell the land to the community if the landowner blocked economic developments. They gave an example in Fife of the community buying a stretch of the shoreline to ensure that it was used as the community wanted. They had decided to leave it as it was for now so that they could enjoy the wildlife. That area had had a lot of houses build recently and so in that case it probably isn't a bad thing. Another argument I picked up on was that many of the sporting estates claimed that the land could not be used for anything else. This seems a totally spurious argument to me. With good development (housing, services and industry) I am sure that the population could survive further north than the Lothian's. There was also a comment about a desire to allow individuals to purchase as little as 1/3 of an acre and allow them to build on it. I assume the 'build' would be a house but unfortunately it didn't link it into reduced planning regulation discussion. Scotland is absolutely moving in the right direction as far as I am concerned and the quicker other the Tucktards in Westminster realise it the better.
  • 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.