Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About A.steve

  • Rank
    I live on HPC!

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,857 profile views
  1. I think that opinion is a fallacy arising from the 'period drama principle' (i.e. that everything in a period drama always seems less threatening that modern drama - because we know the worst imaginable fears about the past did not come to pass... whreas, for contemporary drama... they still might.) I don't think there was restraint in the past - any more than I think there is now. I think that, systemically, then - as now - the maximum supportable risks are taken. The only thing that has changed over time is how we go about measuring the size of the risks. I understand why expe
  2. I agree almost 100% with the above. I've highlighted the two specific bits where my opinion might subtly differ. I suspect that financial institutions always have 'ruled the roost' - and, while I think the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act to have been entirely unethical, I thnk that the extraordinary power of financial institutions goes back much further. In 2008 to 2009 - I felt as if I had been blind-sided in an extraordinarily strange way. I remembered, from childhood, having understood things like money-supply; why M3 was subverted by interest rate policy; why M4 had been adopted in the UK o
  3. I have never stated, thought, written, said or implied anything so ridiculous. I think something has gone wrong with your justifications. I did criticise your previous justification in terms of efficacy as being one that could equally apply to the effeciveness of the Mafia.
  4. Are you suggesting that MPs and the cheeses on big councils all have impeccable morals and it is inconceivable that they might be corrupted? Surely not... Not now... after a spectacular history of the opposite. Inconceivable.
  5. At the risk of flying off at a tangent... I think that "risk" is utterly fascinating... and is massively misunderstood by the vast majority. The thing about risk is that it is slippery... you can't ever really grab hold of it and take control. Some risks are irrelevant... and seem so unlikely that only a lunatic would consider them... except the question might have been wrongly framed in the first place... and the inconceivable actually transpires. A fundamental idea I find incredible is that - paradoxically - sophistication with respect to risk (i.e. applying intellect to manage it more ef
  6. I don't doubt that the Mafia were/are real gangsters - if that's what you mean.
  7. Did you intend to suggest you have faith that Mafia-style threats will be effective?
  8. I completely agree. The problem is that the government response has been inept; has promoted misinformation - and has utterly failed to present sensible balanced communications to the public. Essentially, the entire debacle is consistent with a collapse of government - the sort of situation from which "very bad things" have arisen throughout history.
  9. I feel this is one of the biggest risks from propaganda that accepting a vaccine may be mandatory. The vast majority will not physically resist a determined campaign of coercion - most will 'fold' - and accept whatever is imposed as the easiest way out of a difficult, stressful, situation. I don't think that any dedicated NHS staff would try to compel a medical procedure. Playing devil's advocate (not because I expect military enforcement myself) the Government has stated that it has comitted 5000 troops to roll out the vaccine. Even if this policy is just an attempt to make best use o
  10. Also... no-need to consider future family requirements. The two 'spare bedrooms' are the offices you will be required to provide, gratis, to your employers.
  11. I wasn't at that level of abstraction... and I don't mean that I think one would or would not... just that I don't want to get bogged-down in counter-factual conjecture. I don't think that the common global cause need be something with a simple description (or identifiable person to blame). I think it is something very abstract - yet pervasive. One of its attributes definitely seems to be near-zero interest rates.
  12. Have you considered the possibility that Brexit and Trump and HK/China and the health-hysteria are all symptomatic consequences of a common global phenomena?
  13. From a 'know your history' perspective, my understanding of the 1984 act is that it completely forbids compelled medical procedures. I was genuninely interested in how this relates to previous government interventions. My take on today's restrictions is that they seem to fall outside the usual provisions for public health... There have always been 'serious' quarantine options for those who are (provably) sick... but today's 'extraordinary measures' seem to fall outside this model by targeting those who are not sick.
  14. How did that relate to the 1984 Public Health (Control of Disease) Act? My understanding is that it makes explicit, in primary legislation, that no-one can be compelled to accept a medical procedure. Of course, in these unusual times, I have dramatically reduced sense of trust in primary legislation.
  15. I am not surprised. I think all the hysteria is all about geopolitics. We're talking about significant sums of money and implications for diplomatic relations. Beyond this, I think that vaccination brands will be used to justify restriction related to international travel. I think Khamenei is making explicit the geopolitical affiliations he wants for Iran.
  • 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.