Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fluffy666

  1. Its a staff initiative, Making Moments Matter. It allows me to overlook chronic staff shortages( in my dept. at least) and an increased workload. The incentive for staff is Making Moments Matter for customers, thats all the incentive i could ever need.

    According to very little helps this years pay rise(?) announcement has been delayed as tesco want to freeze it, but as we have MMM im not concerned.

    I see a significant cost saving for Tescos right here, involving the 'creative team' that came up with the concept, the management team that approved it, and a slightly improved filling for Tesco Value Sausages.

  2. I see a lot of new build round here. I work on a big industrial estate with lots of jobs, many of them not well paid - warehouse packers at NMW etc. Just a few kilometers away house builds are booming. As an example look at this one - brownfield site, opposite a council recycling centre and industrial estate, bordering an old council estate full of working class people. Just the sort of thing where building more affordable housing is exactly what we need.


    The flats are a quarter mill. There are two other new build developments within push bike distance. (Walking distance if you're young and remember how to walk without an SUV).

    This is the new build the media are begging for. This is what they want to cover the green belt with. Anyone that thinks some massive "boom" in building is going to deliver big price drops doesn't understand the basics of running a business. The propaganda machine is in full swing to get planning regs relaxed in places where the big corporate builders can bang up some "executive" developments at 30% margin.

    As soon as anyone uses a phrase like 'covering the green belt' I tend to refer them to Google Maps.

    And anyone who thinks that increasing the supply of a product will not, at some point, lead to lower costs for that product.. say hello to 'supply' and 'demand'.

  3. I think the average price is $280,000 or so, similar to here, but they get 2600 ft2 instead of 800...

    Guess per sq ft its a LOT cheaper, but cant see americans moving into <1000ft2 houses to reduce their outlay to under $100k

    According to just released data, both the median and average size of a new single-family home built in 2013 hit new all time highs of 2,384 and 2,598 square feet respectively.


    UK house size is relatively small at 76 m2 (818 ft2)


    Reminds me of something my 8 year old daughter said the other day.. '..But the Simpsons live in a great big house..'

  4. The thing is, I don't think that Tescos management (or a lot of the analysts) get it..

    Tescos have serious quality issues of which they seem to be in denial. The stores are average to a mess. Shopping there always seems to turn out expensive - it looks like they are always trying to game the system, price wise. Non-food is rubbish, too.

    If you want cheap and edible, go to Aldi/Lidl.. If you want a decent supermarket, go to Sainsbury's, if you want unapologetically cheap go to Asda.. why does anyone shop at Tesco anyway? A few price cuts really won't make a big difference.

  5. Some universities insist on taking registers - just like school - to improve attendance at lectures.

    Can they continue treating students like children when their customers are paying so much?

    Good on the complainers I say.

    Actually.. if the students are paying directly AND likely to sue if they fail, then an attendance register becomes vital evidence. If you can prove that a student missed half their lectures then that student really can't complain too much.

    Turning students into consumers, and education into job training, has many downsides.

  6. Child benefit of £20.50 for a single child compounded at 3% over 18 years = £25k = student fees approx = your child doesn't start a career in debt = massive advantage for your adult child to save and acquire assets, make investments or take risks such as starting a business, throughout their lives. Just saying.

    I know not everyone can afford to do that but many can if they can bring themselves to think long term (which judging by my mates, most can't). Set up a direct debit as soon as they're born and job done.

    Adding £80/month in outgoings at the same time as income drops and costs go up. And the rate drops for subsequent children..

    There's a reason why Child Benefit exists, it's not just pocket money for yummy mummies.

  7. If you do a good degree, get a good job at 50K-60K (child-benefit band), have two kids, your effective marginal tax rate will be around 74%.

    How nice of the government to let you keep a quarter of your extra earnings. Has marginal tax on earned income ever been so high?

    Yes, in the 1970s - BUT it was at the very high end. The mad thing is that marginal rates are lower for extra income over £200k than £50k.

    Of course, if you are from a wealthy family, they are likely to regard these fees as just an extension of school fees so you won't be paying this 'tax'. Just another tilt of the playing field.

  8. With household formation running at c 250,000 p.a. and housbuilding about 1/2 that over the last 5 years, where would you suggest these new households live?

    Why will prices correct if you have a massive excess of demand over supply?

    Why are you against building enough new homes to meet demand?

    And to add: Why did prices fall in the US, Ireland, and Spain, but NOT in the UK (much) even with an economic meltdown?

  9. That's why you have a mining survey done when buying a house in a mined area , its then a risk assessment,

    The insurance company's have made that assessment and have made fracking zones an exemption clause , doesn't matter what your not sure about . Best of luck with everything that that entails , including your premium's.

    I'm not too sure you fully understand what unconventional extraction is ?

    Its all about mobility of fluids and gas within a shale which under normal geological conditions has low permeability ,That's why the hydrocarbons are trapped throughout the bed in micropores, fissues and planes .......fracking opens up these and interconnects them to extract the hydrocarbons ...by explosive fracture , hydrostatic pressure ,chemical sovents , viscosity reducers and propants. Its how it works....by destroying the hydrostatic equilibrium within the shale , increasing its permeability, by enhancing the mobility within.

    Haliburton advertising for their hyperbaric perforation guns " cuts through rock like a hot life through butter"

    If they cant get rid of their depleted uranium stocks by spraying it at Iraqi's , here's another way!

    Then pump it up ....

    Just watch the vid ......be better informed .

    Yes, I am aware of what is entailed.

    Do you understand that fracking has been going on for decades? Indeed, in the 1800s the practice of 'shotting' was invented, where basically you lit a stick of dynamite and dropped it down the well..

    These wells have very steep decline curves, because of the lack of mobility of the fluids involved. I'm not sure what you think is happening underground; basically you are putting some cracks in the rock and pumping in sand to try and keep them open; this increases the area of shale exposed to low pressure conditions that can then release gas. But the effect falls of very rapidly from the crack.

    Solvent extraction is more often done for oil, and only when the oil company is absolutely sure that the solvents won't escape into the surrounding rock (not for environmental reasons, but for the reason the solvents are expensive).

    Acid treatment has been used, but would be rapidly neutralised.

    As for depleted uranium.. shales are one of the more radioactive rock types to begin with.

    There are possible issues with fracking - disposal of waste water being the biggest. Plus there is the real possibility that the whole shale 'boom' is more of a ponzi-with-cashflow system. But the scaremongering annoys me.

  10. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-labour-plans-big-risein-nhs-spending-9468344.html

    Great news for highly paid NHS managers more money to waste! Unlikely that the money would be used to recruit the staff the NHS needs. Although the increase in funding may just end up covering PFI costs...

    Yes, cancelling some of the PFI contracts would make far more sense, and probably be cheaper.

  11. The insurance companies have fracking listed as an exclusion clause .

    Best of luck with a mortgage renewal or selling to some one who needs a mortgage , with subsidence /crack exemptions on your bricks and mortar insurance .

    Best of luck proving any subsequent subsidence damage on your property if its within or near too a lateral zone is not fracking related , once the pads are in .

    As for the depth , how long and deep is a fault, ? It doesn't have to move , just provide a route !

    Its a crap shot ,every well is pump and pray , with no idea how the hydrology is going to eventually pan out .

    Vertical containment depends on an inch of cement lining a thin layer of pipe , pumped over several miles at massive pressure , flawlessly ! Then after its been hammered multiple times by shockwaves teaveling up from the depleted uranium shaped charges fired from the perforation guns along the horizontal.

    frankly I'm amazed only 6% fail during construction.

    The real problems arent now , but years or decades after proction.. Capping the well at the surface and walking away is not the end of the process, the millions of gallons of chemical crap pumped down and dissolved out heavy metals and NORM over a huge area will still be trying to find a hydrostatic equilibrium in destroyed and fissured bedding.

    Just watch that lecture

    Ex-coal-mining areas have far worse issues with subsidence, because the rock/coal is actually removed.. not just a well bore. So I'm not exactly sure how that could be an issue as far as mortgages go.

    I'd also add that your visions of 'destroyed and fissured bedding' don't seem to have much connection to reality.

  12. I only know a few so it's not a representative sample. They think they are sticking two fingers up at the political establishment. I find this odd given the toff commodities broker chap that runs the party and his ambition to become the political establishment.

    In the last general election Cameron took the stance - vote for me; I'm not that idiot Gordon Brown. They (Tories) didn't really promise anything beyond the usual bluster. It nearly worked and they did "win" although needing Cleggy to be dragged along for the ride. I think that UKIP have the same tactic. Vote for us, we're not LibLabCon. Their promises are vague at best and unlikley to ever come to anything. Just use the EU/foreigners as a scapegoat.

    Strip away all the petty differences and most folk, left/right, want a better life for themselves and their family and at a broader level for the country. What (IMHO) things like the Piketty debate show is that those people in positions of power, whether through government or through economic power, do not have the broader interests of the populace at heart. Virtually all political groups - for example - represent only a section of society. Good if you are in that section, bad if you are not. This "system" as best I can see has been in operation throughout human history. I agree with okaycuckoo - Piketty is stating the obvious. Sadly I don't think that will close the discussion though mate :)

    I'd have to say that in the 1945-73 period there was a reasonable coincidence between what people wanted and what politicians did - which gave us those things like full employment, consistent growth, nationalized utilities, the welfare state, and other trappings of social democracy.

    What has happened since has been the neoliberal fightback, Part of which has been the co-opting of pretty much all political parties, starting from the right but now extending across the spectrum.

  13. The "worker" has as much chance to benefit from the system as the guy who is sitting in a trading room all day, because all the same information is available on his PC at home (he maybe pays a fee for some of it?) The stock market has probably made multi-millionaires of people who started with nothing, and sent people who inherited millions into poverty?

    Today, due to the internet, there is more opportunity than ever for the "little guy" to take part in the money system and benefit from it than in previous generations, it just seems that the sheeple prefer things simple, "BTL is my pension", "property always goes up" ?

    Obviously there will always be people who have capital and can sit back without working, and people who need to feed themselves right now, whether because they can`t manage money or they didn`t start out with any. If genetics made everyone a Buffet, then there would be another system in place to supply basic needs, maybe a law that everyone has to do one day a week on the farm/pipeline/care home? (SF story taking shape here I think) but human nature being what it is there will always be someone willing to exchange their labour for some of the currency of the moment, and always be people who prefer working on the farm rather than anyalising the profit potential of the farm?

    I think that there is a bit of Texas Sharpshooter going on here..

    If 1000 people try stock market trading, and the market just moves randomly with zero trend, then half will 'beat the market', and 10 of them will be in the top 1%. Bear in mind that humans have a huge propensity to attribute causes to random things.

    I'd also add that given that many of our finest minds seem to be dedicated to finding profitable trading strategies, which is a zero-sum game over the medium term, since when one group finds such a strategy, it will affect the market such that other groups learn to take advantage and cancel it out. Digging holes and filling them in for geniuses..

  14. How often does a UK government actually command more than 50% of the overall votes cast?

    .. and has there ever been a UK government that had more than 50% of the registered electors coming out and voting for them at the election?

    Well.. Looks like Labour in 1951 got 40.3% of voters to turn out and vote for them, the post war record, and lost.

    1945 : Labour got 47.7% of 78% turnout.

    1950 : Labour got 46% of 84% - in terms of absolute share of electorate, almost double 2005 but with a very small majority.

    1951 : Labour got 48.8%, Conservative 48%, of a 82.6% turnout. (40%) Conservatives got a majority..

    1959 : Conservatives got 49.4% of a 79% turnout.. (39%)

    1966: Labour 48% (76%) (36.5%)

    1979: Cons 44% (76%) (33.4% of voters)

    2005: Lab 35.6% of 61% (21.7%)

    2010: Con 36% of 65% (23.5%)

    So.. 1951 was as close as it gets post-war. And they lost!

    Any party that managed to get a third of the electorate to go out and vote for it nowadays would win by a landslide.

  15. Cuadrilla themselves .......

    They finally admitted the casement failure 6 months after the tremors happened. Its the real reason why operations were immediately suspended and the casements grouted to the point of failure ...The pipe train got trashed .

    Just do the math .....6% of well casements fail during construction 50% fail within 3 decades , every 40 lateral pad is practically guaranteed to have a containment failure along its pipes .......with no idea of the hydrological response over time ....its a crap shot ...

    But all this has been done to death in the other threads , just read them !

    Yes, I've read a lot of badly-informed speculation.

    Not quite sure that it's the best way to drive energy policy.

  16. That's the Douglas Alexander approach I think he's going to canned from running election after this - Labour have had a stinker considering it's mid-term.

    Also think there is a good chance we'll see Yvette Cooper as Labour leader before election, followed by some Labour defections to UKIP.

    Labour should be shouting from the rooftops about things like the tax breaks for the rich , the handing over of public services to groups like Capita and G4S, the desperate need for housing, the stupidity of the student loans/tuition fees system, the need to renationalise the railways, the terrible level of wages, the complete lack of a UK industrial policy..

    And the fact that the one thing the Tories really promised to do - reduce the deficit - they've failed at, at enormous cost.

    There are numerous, open goals that Labour are refusing to take a shot at, presumably because there are a small army of lobbyists who are very keen that they don't. Of course, the world is probably a different place if you happen to be a millionaire living in Islington.

  • 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.