Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

fluffy666

Members
  • Posts

    10,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fluffy666

  1. Don't bother ...it doesn't matter what's applicable in the US...the crown owns the mineral rights in the UK , trespass laws are now being changed in this summers queens speech , If there is a pad within 2 miles of you they can run a lateral under your house without the need of notification let alone permission .

    The first you may know of it is when you come to renew your mortgage or sell , and suddenly find exemption clauses in your bricks and mortar insurances , a premium price hike , or an outright refusal of renewal , and all that entails . Your stuffed if your an homeowner .

    That lateral will be at significant depth, and pretty much be definition won't have any effect at the surface. Indeed, you'd be very hard pressed to find the thing.

    An abandoned 150-year-old mine shaft would be worse, or the presence of natural evaporite rocks which can dissolve to form a sinkhole.

  2. The economics of the Fracking boom are.. murky to say the least.

    I wouldn't mind it being attempted in the UK as an alternative to gas and oil imports, IF I had confidence that it would be tightly regulated as far as water use and disposal was concerned. The problem is that the pro-fracking lobby is too anti-regulation to make a stab at effective regulation and the anti-fracking lobby is too busy panicking about non-issues (burning tapwater and tiny earthquakes) to put a decent case together. Both sides need a slap with the haddock of reality.

  3. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/fracking-compensation-increase-quell-opposition

    Given the cost of housing in those areas I'm guessing extracting the reserves won't be economically viable.

    Surely if you "own" the home it's your land especially if it's freehold so the company should be buying the rights from you? Or does this only work if you are landed gentry?

    No, that's only US law. US law basically means that you own a whole 'wedge' in theory down to the core of the earth from your land, including all mineral rights. Most other countries have different laws on this (I'd have to look up the details).

  4. If that becomes a risk the Tories/Kippers will cut a deal in the marginals, for instance not running candidates against each other and Tories offering a cabinet place for any Kippers that get elected.

    But as I say, I don't think the UKIP votes will translate to much in GE anyway, the risk of a Miliband led government would be too much for most people.

    I can see a backlash against FPTP coming - if UKIP does land some high votes in the non-marginals but fails to get many seats - and it is apparent that 30% of England didn't get much representation.

    Yes, if only we'd had the chance to introduce a voting system where you could prioritize candidates..

  5. My in-laws are a bit like that. It would cost them a wedge to downsize from their massive, well located 5 bed house to a massive garden and all they can find to downsize to is s*** with no gardens miles from any services....so they are staying put.

    I must try the line "sell before you miss out" on them the next time I see them.

    My in-laws have a house like that as well..

    Although they don't have any plans to move.

    I wouldn't mind people doing that - they do own the place, after all - it's when people like that complain about new developments that I have issues..

  6. Does anyone have any thoughts on overcompensation of the 2008/9 recession causing a larger depression - thus what we have been experiencing is a lesser run up [depression to the real thing?

    It strikes me that we are witnessing highest ever [xxxx] prices and low wage growth on an international and little prospects of that improving.

    Had governments not attempted to bailout the investments they would have cleared themselves by now instead of the world economy looking like it's now in a crackup boom.

    Perhaps there are greater forces at work- deflation from technology, peak oil, global warming etc?

    Ultimately, the biggest single force is at work is a relatively small change in the proportion of profits going to wages rather than capital.

    The progressive impacts - reduced demand leading to persistent low inflation, debt run-up, savings (capital) glut, high unemployment, welfare dependency..all progressively arise from this.

    Note, for example, that if we had full employment and robust wage growth, interest rates would not be 0.5%.

  7. Your parents, my in laws. I love the ipods and ipads argument. I counteract that with explaining how cost effective ipods and music download sites are compared to all the money they wasted on expensive stereos, speaker systems, vinyl lps, petrol getting to the shops etc. So wasteful.

    If I price up every electronic device in the house (apart from the boiler and inverter), then I could replace them from a month's take home pay and have change..

    Ironically, the boomers probably spent proportionately more on consumer electronics in the 1970s.

  8. The idea has been around for ages.

    Problem is that capturing the CO2, transporting it hundreds of miles out to sea and injecting it into oil and gas fields costs a lot of money (and a fair amount of energy).

    Coal industry likes it, generally because they can keep throwing a bit of spare change towards an idea that is unlikely to go anywhere but does allow them to go on about Clean Coal and carry on business as usual.

  9. Is it something to do with reducing the debt that he's going on about. Is he bothered there's not enough imputed rent being put in the GDP figures or something.

    He's going to really spook the CBI with all that talk of free markets rather than taxpayer handouts, money from swindled savers and government subsidies.

    Well, if the general public wants to stop the City doing something massively harmful purely to line it's own pockets, then Free Markets are suddenly very important and we can't possibly interfere.

    However, if the City gets into trouble due to engaging in a self-serving whirlwind of coke-fuelled gambling, then it's vitally important that the government pours in vast quantities of taxpayer's money 'To preserve our international competitive position' (or whatever). Naturally it can't ask for anything in return, because free markets.

  10. The infrastructure to support housing is as complex as railways.

    All those people sleeping at the side of the streets really does show what a housing crisis we really have in this country!!!

    Unfortunately what the government/BoE wants and what they get is not always in their control.

    My idea was this:

    All local councils are required to provide building plots with planning permission (and services - water, sewerage, etc) for sale at a rate of 1 per 100 population.

    The cost would be fixed at 10 year's council tax for the property to be built (so bigger plots would cost more in proportion).

    Priority would go to those signing up for at least 5 year's owner occupation, who did not already own a house, then existing homeowners, then build-to-sell/rent. People could apply to build for renting out but would always be lower priority (so if there was a surplus of plots, you could build 'on-spec). There would be a time limit for completion as well.

  11. Cameron keeps banging on about "in real terms" as if inflation has magically made everyone richer since 2007! Unless wages across the board have kept in line with CPI, then he's the one who should be careful talking about "real terms", rather than warning others to be careful about using the term "bubble".

    And who accepts his premise anyway that it is inevitable or desirable for house prices to surpass the 2007 peak? What is this "latest report" he saw [that it would take until 20017/18 for prices to reach 2007 levels (in real terms)]?

    I can't imagine what it must be like for the 25-35 age group in the UK right now - to have this relentless pressure from the top to saddle up with crippling, real debt.

    If you talk about 'real terms', or even worse 'real terms GDP per capita', and/or remove bonuses from the picture, it's decidedly bleak.

  12. 20 years ago the view was...take out the biggest mortgage you can and the debt will be eroded away through wages rises.

    Has that worked for people taking on mortgages 10 years ago ?

    How do they now convince people to sign up for a life time of debt....FEAR,

    My parents had a £6k (!) mortgage in 1973 (equivilent to ~£60-70k for a 3 bed semi now).

    Even without repayments, after 12 years that would have lost 75% of it's value, to £1.5k. Or more realistically, wages were 4 times higher, assuming just inflation-level increments.

    Now, I took out a £100k mortgage in 2001.. if it had been IO, then in theory, inflation would have reduced it by 30%. Even with repayment it's still almost half the value it was.

    The paradox is that if you expect low wage/price inflation (i.e. <3%) then you should be very cautious about taking on debt, yet that very low inflation means low interest rates which makes large debts seem manageable.

  13. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2634476/UKs-free-market-risk-forces-pessimism-says-Osborne-Chancellor-claims-Labour-populist-Right-waging-war-big-business.html

    "Britain's status as a free-market nation is at risk from ‘the forces of pessimism’ who are waging war on big business, George Osborne will claim today. "

    That's right folks....the free market that's supported by schemes such as FLS/HTB1/HTB2/Q.E./The prime minister doing photo shoots/The PM saying house prices could rise for 4 years.

    The forces of pessimism must be heavier than the forces of fundamentals !!!!

    For me Osborne just admitted that their "recovery" is based on talk/sentiment. There has been no fundamental change in the UK over the last 4 years, no real jobs, no real investment, no real cuts....Just talk.

    There is certainly no free market at the moment.

    The bloke is out of his depth, he has no idea of what they problems are and how to solve them if you ask me.

    Free market....funniest thing I've heard in a long time. :D:D:D:D I can only think by pessimism he means "truth"...I think maybe HPC is to blame...out glasses aren't half empty they are empty.

    Actually, it sounds like he's pissed off that Pfizer wasn't able to asset-strip AstraZenica. The fact that the majority of M&A stuff that goes on is destructive - to shareholders, employees and customers - seems to have passed him by.

  14. Instinctively I agree, but if it were true then wouldn't the South West have fallen further than the West Midlands, which I don't think is the case?

    My guess is that the South West is a common destination for those who have had enough of London, so you get a fair bit of 'We sold our 1.5 bedroom flat in the east end and bought a small mansion in Dorset' going on.

  15. Yours is a very simplistic analysis. Take, for example, the highlighted text. Plutonium cannot simply be equated to some mass of uranium based purely on their relative radioactivity. Plutonium is also very toxic, and you completely ignore how plutonium might be accumulated and concentrated in the food chain.

    Well, at least it IS an analysis. Most of the coverage seems to avoid any actual numbers as much as possible.

    As far as your criticism goes, I'd point you to 2 starting assumptions:

    1) I'm taking the entire quantity of fuel on-site as being dissolved. This is to counter scaremongering about such a quantity. A more realistic estimate - especially of the Uranium and Plutonium - would be much less than 1% being dispersed even in the worst case.

    2) I'm then concentrating this in the to 10m of the Pacific, which is, again an extremely unfavorable estimate. We generally think of the top ~100m of the oceans as being well-mixed.

    So my estimates are 'conceding' at least 4 orders of magnitude to the scaremongers to start with, and still don't find much to worry about.

    (Meanwhile, a single coal mining accident has just killed far more people than Fukushima, I'm sure there will now be a 441 page thread on the subject..)

  16. Because if you allow anyone to just go on the public roads without a basic level of skill, there's a very probability of fatality or life changing injury being inflicted on other people as a result of dangerous driving.

    Exactly!

    If you allow anyone to borrow as much as they want without a basic level of financial literacy, there's a very good chance that other people will be caught up in the resultant bubble, bailouts and reposessions, even if they were perfectly prudent themselves...

  17. Taking money of people you consider to have too much is not going to make the poor happier. I'm not sure that inequality is a big issue. The bigger issue is poorer people not being able to earn enough to have a decent standard of living, compared with the efforts they put into their work.

    Inequality is associated with lower economic growth, lower social mobility, and lower levels of satisfaction for everyone (even those at the top). Bear in mind that once immediate needs are met, people tend to measure themselves against their perceived 'peers', and these relative comparisons are unaffected by tax rates.

  18. Great, yet another rancid "debt-victims-thread".

    The debtors understood their mortgage when it was forever HPI. It's people like you offering excuses for them now, on their say so of now acting dumb when.

    As they outbid myself, my brothers and my sister, year after year.... me then them will be hitting 40 years old having never owned, whilst these fools paid x2 what we were prepared to pay. No forgiveness.

    It's not like these borrowers have already not had enough years of forbearance, low rates and other stimulus to keep them in position - and many areas of the country appear to be at new peaks of value (so sell up), with little inventory on the market.

    My impression was that you don't think we need regulation of mortgages, and you want people to learn about the importance of long term financial planning by the method of progressively losing everything over the course of several years. Problem is, they don't get those years back; they don't get a second chance.

    I think that this is pretty vindictive and unpleasant, as well as promoting bad financial practice from the banks.

    Anyone who took out a mortgage that they couldn't afford long term on the basis on everlasting HPI was either very badly advised, or pretty dumb, or both. By definition. And it was the banks that allowed them even when the banks should have been expert. Think of the Ford Pinto - should the buyers have known that a slight accident would incinerate them, or was it the responsibility of the large, presumably expert car maker?

    What happens now.. well, perhaps you'll get the mass repossessions, evictions and misery you want. But I'd point you to Spain, or Ireland, where banks would rather hang onto empty, decaying properties than take a loss by selling for 'less than it's worth'. Be careful what you wish for.

  19. If that's the case, their ignorance and entitlement has damaged me for years, as they chose to take out these mortgages.

    They should eat the kerb... not expect non-onwers they've outbid for years and years (paying ridic prices) to carry them about on the shoulders, year after year.

    Get repo'd and get renting. New owners waiting at lower house prices. The borrowers are not the victims. We are.

    Well.. losing all your money and being repossessed doesn't sound like winning to me.

    So.. if those who are allowed to borrow beyond their means are victims, and those who refuse to borrow beyond their means are ALSO victims, this tends to suggest that the system as it stands is a mess.

    That's why we need strict laws on the amount that can be lent. The fact that you want to see people hurt (and their blameless dependents) for being imprudent doesn't look great.

    I agree with vengers view on this. If you took out a 300k IO and now your whining about having to pay it back, you're part of the problem to put it nicely. People like this and the banks that lent to them are not the victims.

    So what was the bank - which unlike the borrower is meant to be full of people who understand money and long term borrowing - doing handing over fantastic sums of cash with little or no diligence?

  20. It's not like it's a secret that you have to pay back what you borrow.

    It's not like interest rates aren't something that are well known and understood.

    It's not like it isn't obvious when you borrow 3x,4x,5x,6x your annual salary and secure it against your residence, that it is a very big deal indeed and you should do some serious forethought.

    Any adult of sound mind should be considered responsible for their own actions. It's not up to anyone else to stop them being a cretin.

    In which case, why do we have driving tests? It's not like it's a secret that driving a car badly can get you killed.

    And to extend the analogy, the problem isn't the individual in isolation, it's their surroundings and other people. Financially illiterate people stoke bubbles which, in the case of property means that financially literate people are affected; they get into debts they can;t repay which hits their dependents (who have no choice in the matter); and they funnel money to non-productive spivs and speculators.

×
×
  • 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.