Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

georgethefourth

New Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About georgethefourth

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie
  1. Don't bother with Chard or coininvestdirect who have been very dissapointing recently... take it from me grrrr why do you say that john? i havent bought from them yet but was thinking about it. what was wrong with their service? fwiw ive always founds weightons good and airedale was very prompt
  2. how much was he charging for the sovs? the last few i got i paid £149. now theyre £160 at weightons. seems a bit steep
  3. interesting point. but if all positions are held to be wrong until one or the other is conclusively proved then were basically saying "i dont know". if its not a yes or a no, then it must be a maybe.
  4. i dont really understand your logic. it seems a total contradiction. you accept that god could exist and yet until it is proven say that he definately doesnt. unless it is proven and then he definately does. i would argue that he either does or doesnt exist, but either way we dont know. we can say that based on what we know chances are he doesnt, but i dont see how we can be more conclusive past that. i agree you cant have the 90% - 10% thing in absolute terms, he either 100% exists or 100% doesnt. however you can in human terms, in that, based on what we know now, we are 90% sure he doesnt exist. in the same way we can say that any currently held scientific principle has a 90% of being accurate but we cant be 100% sure because something could come along and disprove it or add things to it. people used to believe the world was flat but we know it isnt. they could have used your arguement and said its flat until you prove otherwise but they still would have been wrong in the interim while waiting for proof
  5. if you find proof for god at 12.30pm and accept that he exists from that time, does that mean he didnt exist at 12.29pm because proof had yet to be found? you yourself say that he "exists or he doesnt", so in this example god must have existed prior to the evidence being found. and also, the process of 'finding evidence' is open to human error. perhaps were not looking in the right place, or maybe were not clever enough to comrehend it, but surely that is a limitation on our behalf and not a reason to rule out any possibilty of gods existance?
  6. injin - continuing with the analogy of aliens on mars, I would be grateful if you could clear this up because what you are saying seems a bit contradictory. you say there is no evidence for aliens and therefore they do not exist, but if evidence surfaced tommorow then you obviously would concede their existance. nothing would have changed in that 2 day period between no evidence and evidence being found though, theyre existance (or lack of it) remains constant its just our understanding of it that alters. the same holds true with god. there is no proof for god but that doesnt automatically mean it doesnt exist. surely the only logical position can be that 'i dont know' - or at least, 'the evidence points to their not being a deity' rather than your position, which seems to be very human-centric, in that existance of x, y or z depends solely on our ability to prove it
  7. the corporations could provide the firearms. anyway, if the state did not exist the corporations would create it - just as they have done (the fed ect), as a means to legitamise their cartels and claim they are in national interests, when in reality they are just means of preserving power. look at the banking industry lately. any profits are kept by the owners, any losses are paid by the taxpayer. THAT is the true nature of capitalism, maximise profits while minimising risk, regardless of the ideology
  8. not true. in certain sectors where supply is fixed, such as commodity production, monopolies could easily exist. a few corporations could control all the meaningful deposits of a metal for example and regulate prices. new entrants would may be able to find small deposits and undercut existing producers, but not on large enough scales to affect overall prices. also, one product of capitalism is the formation of corporations and conglomerates, since captal savings and strategic advantages are gained through takeovers and continued growth. in an unregulated capitalistic system this would be even more prevailent and, after a time, a handful of corporations would control each sector. new businesses attempting to start up would be crushed instantly through fair means or foul. prices would be pushed up. the public would be forced to pay the prices and these prices would be so high as to prevent any savings. the result would be that the masses are trapped in a cycle of working to achieve a very basic standard of living and with no prospects of escaping it.
  9. look at this video from him too. 3 minutes in it shows that, inflation-adjusted, oil was more expensive in the 1960s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqz9J4hxh3k...feature=related
  10. i think they would force margin calls on btlers because the banks need to raise money on the markets, and if they have a risky balance sheet the banks credit rating goes down and interest rates go up. the banks have to maintain a relatively low risk book otherwise they will be penalised in raising money, as well as being open to short attacks on the stockmarkets for being more exposed than their peers in the sector. it looks as if many want to lower their exposure to the mortgage market anyway, and so pushing a few speculators out wouldnt be a bad idea
  11. OT - i was told someone from a property programme posted on a thread yesterday and got panned. anyone know which thread it was on? cheers, gtIV
  12. how in gods name is this a 'socialist' nightmare? are you saying that bush and the neo-cons are socialist?
  13. agree that its good that this is getting out on prime time so that, while perhaps not adding much to the fairly informed bunch of people on this site, it does summarise the issue well and concisely for the layman. (hope that doesnt sound too conceited). what i will say for the presenter with regard to him coming across as slightly arrogant and in possession of a big ego - it sounded like he was warning about the risks of this mess for years and was ignored and, like us predicting a crash in house-prices, probably laughed at. now, when things are plain for all to see he probably cant resist feeling slightly superior, which is quite understandable someone mentioned this was part one of three. is that true?
  14. it was a very good programme but it didnt really say anything new. most of what was said has been said already on this site. i think it would have benefitted from a bit more forward looking, using his experience to predict possibilities of what may happen next. he did mention that barclays and RBS results this week would show significant losses but this is probably already priced in in the city
  15. thats what i said though isnt it in option one? im trying to look at all options and see if any of them pose the liklhood of houseprices remaining where they are now (or even increasing). can anyone see a situation where it would work out cheaper to buy a house now?
×
×
  • 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.