Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Injin

  1. But as Traktion has pointed out- nature itself generates coercion- it compels the individual to seek out food and shelter ect- and what the neo liberal model tries to pretend is that somehow the negotiations between men are not subject to these natural forces.

    Coercion has to be a phenomenon over and above nature, nature being the background and default state of everything.

    Common sense tells us that a starving man will find it hard to negotiate a good price for a loaf of bread- yet the neo liberal's will assure us that the negotiation was free from any coercion- no matter how exorbitant the final price might turn out to be.

    It is free from coercion. Coercion is force applied over and above natures demands. Unless you know a way to change nature, you have to take nature as a given before you do anything else.

    No sensible rational person says that gravity is oppressing people without a helicoptor.

    The fiction being advanced here is that the agreed price of the bread was arrived at through a negotiation between two individuals who were both entirely free of coercion- the fact the one of the two was literally starving is somehow presented as being external to the negotiation process- yet- in reality- it was central to that process.

    it's not a fiction. If the guy with the bread has no weaponry, it's coercion free. Might nor be fair, might not be even, but it is free from coercion.

    So the model of 'free choice' offered to us by the neo liberals is one in which the 'choice' is stripped of it's context and reduced to a simplistic formula in which the mere existence of alternatives- no matter how dire those alternatives might be- are enough to guarantee that a free choice has occurred.

    The neo liberals are not free marketeers. The neo liberals are statist assholes who add coercion to the mix so any trade winds up in their favour.

    Neo liberals are authoritarian marxist communists with an accountant, in fact.

  2. Green wave 2 could be underway in gold after a clear 5 waves up hitting the 50% fib retracement area and descending blue line resistance for the third time, but penetrating it which is a good sign - price usually goes through on the 4th test.

    It's broken out of the bear flag and like at any major low after a big decline there are still going to be loads of gold bears looking for even lower prices, which in itself is a contrarian indicator. If this plays out with a higher low around mid-August then it would form the right shoulder to set-up an inverse head & shoulders pattern with a green wave 3 to follow next.

    Studying the length of the previous declines and a recent 30TD cycle that has possibly developed (but could as easily disappear again.....), then the next low would be expected to bottom on either August 14 or August 15, 2013.

    Finally, GLD left a gap on July 8, 2013 which probably needs to be filled which means that this correction could send gold to $1180-$1190 again. Sentiment would once again be really bad for gold, but it would likely be a great opportunity to add to positions if my analysis is correct.

    Chartism doesn't work.

  3. Most of his essays are very good, but this one deals specifically with gold (not all of them do - at least not directly):


    Ok, he lieks gold, doesn't know why it trades the way it does, it used to be worth ****** all, now it isn't and he doesn't know why. Wall St Journal quote, which doesn't mean anything, claims that the PTB are anti gold (fair enough) and pro paper (no they aren't, they are pro force) and he says people hold gold because they want volcano insurance (also fair enough.) Claims gold was the worlds monetary asset of choice (nope) says some people like gold, some distrust politicians (no shit, really?) he carries on in the vein for quite some time and he's got nothing. the PTB don't like gold, they like paper. he doesn't even understand what the problem is. His solution*, naturally, is gold. Useless.

    Congratulations, Errol you have found False Dichotomy Mans true indentity. Any clue on the location of his underground secret lair?

    Basically the guy goes through every single logical error i've corrected for you already and doubles down. Gold is money, store of value etc etc the usual goldbug shit that is purely and simply wrong.

    *Dollars to doughnuts he started with his olution and then worked backwards.

  4. Can you please read the essays/articles on the Detlev Schlichter website and point out the logical errors?


    - Bio of Mr. Schlichter: http://detlevschlichter.com/about/

    First, whoever the guy is is irrelevent.

    So, you can stop posting your "famous person buys gold" crap, now you know that.

    Second, you've sent me to a website with about 4 billion articles on it. Do you want me to do a thesis on this guy or have you got something specific for me to go at?

  5. Newbie here. Lots of interesting information to digest, so thanks to almost all contributors.

    One question though, this 'Injin' character doesn't appear to offer anything valid except to antagonise other posters. So I was wondering how I put him on ignore.



    I antagosnise the other posters because the truth pisses them off.

    They have no idea what they are doing and even a few short lines of text reveals this.

    It's not their fault they can't think. It IS their fault they don't listen when logical errors are pointed out.

  6. [/b]

    Dream on, they are fighting a losing battle against deflation, the supermarkets have to price stuff to sell or it stays on the shelf, the only limit on the rentiers is peoples ability to pay, my rent has just dropped fifty quid a month.

    Supermarkets don't have to be there. hows your tax billm, btw? is that coming down at all?

    The sheeple are a long way off arguing the toss about the stuff that gets debated on here because they don`t know it exists,but given the right provocation the British sheep will go mental in a heartbeat, the VI`s and Controllers are all about soft sell here, "pay a lot for your house, because you are worth it" that sort of thing, they won`t do overt confiscation of "wealth" because they know what will happen. Globalisation means someone will always pop up to supply a need or a product, the problem for the VI`s is getting sheeple to take more food and consumer-stuff into their mouths.

    If you say so!

  7. They've borrowed and spent the thick end of a trillion quid in the last five years holding up house prices. The annual interest on the national debt is forecast to hit £80bn by 2018. Want to guess what that figure will be if they borrow and spend as much again in the next five years? I don't know for sure but I'd guess it would be something close to £200bn. We'd have to close the NHS and the state pension scheme just to cover the interest on our debts. Cheaper to let the housing market crash and let the banks recoup their losses from the BTL cohort.

    They will close the NHS and the state pension scheme first.

  8. It can't not happen.

    Government is going to risk all to hold off until 2015. Base rates are only going up not down. A sizeable demographic has to cash out to retire in next few years - that will become a stampede for the door. Credit will cost 9%+ in 2016.

    Under 40s won't want a property - and when they get in to government are going to be taxing the arses off the older generations as payback for the mess they've been left.

    Property won't be a pension - and the state won't be giving you one either - we'll be the generations that mortgaged their future and they're not going to let us forget that.

    They'll keep going until they are taking food directly from peoples mouths, if they are allowed to.

    The only limit on the rentiers is peoples ability to put up with shit, and we are a long way off reaching the point where people start to seriously argue the toss.

  9. I have often talked openly about what I do for a living on this site. It ain't banking or even remotely connected with finance.

    Various people here can consign your unworthy speculation above to the dustbin.

    If not shill then idiot.

    Question resolved!

    That was easy.

  10. I would say the skim will be reduced. But don't forget the second source of skim - the state may well fill up the vacuum.

    The skim won't be reduced.

    What will happen instead is that some people will go homeless, or in extremis, killed off.

  11. I'm not so dismissive (but then I'm pretty thick when it comes to economics). My take on it would be that more affordable housing on its own cannot make us, in aggregate, any richer (even with an increase in supply). Where he may well be wrong is that he ignores other changes that would arise from such a scenario.

    He's basically saying that we are just as rich now as when we were cavemen.

    As I said before, he completely ignores the interaction with the real world. Guys either a shill or a ******wit. Avoid.

  12. I'm still puzzling over the post in question (which I thoroughly enjoyed). I guess the way to resolve it is to take it to its extreme and ask "what would happen if housing was free?" My answer to that would be, wages would fall but our international trade and, consequently, balance of payments would go positive or reach equilibrium. So, no richer, but less tick...

    The thing is that there is no "our."

  13. They could, and do.

    That's fine as long as they're not supported with tax incentives and other interventions as they are at the moment.

    Rentierism should be discouraged as it's not economically productive.

    Your solution of having no mortgages would only work for the common man if rent on properties other than your home was fairly heavily taxed to discourage rentierism. Otherwise all the property would be in the hands of the rich within a generation.

    All property IS in the hands of the rich, you just get usage rights.

  14. I was just posting the information. The picture of Putin was quite amusing I thought.

    Shilling, really.

    Of course, the continued strategy by Russia/China to massively increase gold holdings is important. There are global strategy games being played here.

    I don't think a fraction of a %age increase would be considred by anyone even remotely objective to be massive.

    I also don't think it's thaty unusual for a government to support it's domestic production of something by buying into it, either.

    Seeing what you want to see.

  15. what you are saying is the obvious fact that there is only so much housing wealth in the land...and you are saying there isnt enough.

    Problem is, in a growing population there is never enough.

    Doesnt mean that financialisation cures a single overall problem...it simply drains spending power from those that earn it.

    The problem with the analysis (and scepticus too) is that it assumes that human interactions are a fixed loop that only occur with each other.

    But economics is about human interaction with the wider environment as well.

    it's all very well saying that we can try system x or system y but what's the effect of said systems when it comes to getting coal out of the ground?

  16. Most of it comes from Russia. Russia currently purchases nearly 100% of all domestic production as far as I'm aware.

    So the answer is it comes from the ground and is sold by the miners/producers.

    oh right, so theres no evidence of increased demand then. is that what you wanted to say?

    China is also conducting a similar policy with regard to domestice gold.

    Kinda irrelevent then, isn't it?

  17. Well like I said, those owner-occupiers who can't keep up payments or get to retirement with a large IO mortgage are as much classifiable as poor as those struggling to pay rent or those finding their ability to save even small quantities of money curtailed.

    Why have you assumed that getting shlter automatically requires a mortgage or large payment? For most of history stuff just got built and then people lived in it.

    Real estate, among a few other things, is a means by which the social structure is locally defined. In a society based upon strict property rights concepts, it is not unexpected that property rights come to define rich and poor.

    Real estate oens't generaly coincide with property rights. One fo the reasons it's called real estate is because its largely unreal, based on entirely arbitary and imaginary land division.

    Further back in history when there was a large quantity of common and undeveloped land and property rights were not embedded, what defined rich and poor was the primarily ability to employ force of arms.

    It still is. Most of what we currently do is backed by violence, save a few small pockets of voluntary interaction ( the actually productive bits)

    We can raise house prices if at the same time the velocity of our money slows down. The two balance out. 4 decades of HPI have coincided with 4 decades of declining money velocity.

    Money velocity? lol

    Not that shit again.

  18. I mean that if in one instance, the average person in the UK is spending 40% of their take home pay on shelter, and then later, the average person in the UK is spending 30% of their take home pay on shelter then in the second instance the average UK person has now had their disposable income increased by 10% and is thus richer.

    Assuming that the real value of their income has remained constant.

    Basically what I am saying is that if we were to get the big fall in housing costs you are looking for, unless some other essential went up to compensate we'd all have got magically 'richer', while the quantity of goods and energy we could acquire would not have changed....

    paying the state is going to turn out to not have been essential. :)

    Hope this helps.

  • 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.