Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jazza

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. Just as a bit of an update I notice the house I almost bought is back on the market at 399,950 now.
  2. Must say the book I am currently reading "A history of money from ancient times to the present day" by Glyn Davies strongly disagrees with most of that. Nero indeed started debasing the coinage (the aureus reduced in weight and the denarius became only 90% pure), but this was not a problem for 200 years while the empire was still expanding. Inflation during this time was very low. By Ad250 (the beginning of the high inflationary period) the silver content was 40 percent. By the time of Gallienius 20 years later, the silver content was down to 4% and inflation was rampant. Then came Aurelian who changed the nominal values of the coinage which in fact caused inflation to increase at a much higher rate. Interesting quote here for the gold currency crowd "Modern believers in the disinflationary magic of a gold currency.....should note that Aurelian proved conclusively that a "reformed" currency is perfectly compatible with an increase rather than a decrease in inflation" Diocletian in fact returned the coinage to a 100% purity, but he was still not able to control inflation (possibly because of the existing coinage already circulating)
  3. Singapore. Japan. The non-oil gulf states. You might as well say there are a hell of a lot of countries with loads of resources who are poor and not getting any richer.
  4. Looks like you were quicker than me dettached... Incidentally, it's not all doom and gloom, Germany, France, and the USA all have 60%+ public debt.
  5. If we go with the mail's 44billion for PFI + currently accounted for Net Debt of 536 billion + NR debt of about 90 billion according to FT = 670 billion, which I think is about 46% of GDP.
  6. Are they not saying "as this money is currently a loan then it must go on the books" - which seems fair enough but also - ie when the the debt is converted to a bond guaranteed by the government, then it will be taken off the public books.
  7. If there's a run on a bank as big as RBS (due to make £10 billion profit this year) it might be better under the mattress.
  8. Funny you should say that, the agent came back to us on this house, because it had fallen through. I now have it under offer, just waiting on survey, etc...
  9. My lawyer and accountant disagree.
  10. Must say that when I first came to this country I was surprised that going to a GP was completely free. In NZ you have to pay $50 or thereabouts for each visit (there are exemptions for people on a benefit). I actually think this is quite a good way of only encouraging people who are sick to turn up. It's also a hell of a lot easier to get an appointment whenever you want. On the GPs salary figures, my impression was that the widely publicised figures in the media (average of £100,000 or whatever) actually only applies to practice partners rather than salaried GPs. So given that they are owners of a business, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable. The problem was that a group of very goals focussed types of people were given targets and an incentive to achieve them. You can't then complain that they happen to be hitting those targets.
  11. I'm quite interested in this, because I have actually been involved in getting a self-cert mortgage in Ealing in the past. ANd you know what? They only gave it to me because they felt that given that I had a certain amount of equity in the property the risks of me not being able to meet the payments were balanced by the probability that the value of the property wouldn't fall so far as to wipe out all the equity in it. So I don't really see what the fuss is about. The banks know these deals are riskier, so they arrange the conditions so as to mitigate that risk.
  12. I have to say that when I was at university (admittedly 15 years ago and in New Zealand) you would have a job sorted before you left. All the big corporates came around and were desperate to hire graduates. I can't believe things are much different in the UK now, mainly because that is where I am working and getting a job has never been a problem (and I'm a contractor, so change jobs frequently). For a start though, having a masters (or indeed a PhD) is no advantage. Employers want someone who can get things done. Having a level of technical background is good, but past a certain point doesn't really count for anything (this is assuming you work in the commercial world, not in science). Anyone who can't get a reasonable type of job, at least in London, straight out of university is doing something very wrong indeed.
  13. You aren't really proving anything with your point though. All you are saying is that all else being equal, the person with more money can buy something. You don't account for the fact that they also have to provide for the cost of paying for the money borrowed. You also say that it's inevitable that all assets become so expensive that you have to borrow to pay for them, and yet your only example is still only housing. Really? Not sure when and where you are referring to. I don't think the Georgian terraces you see in London were put up in this way. YOu don't think people had to buy the raw materials for the housing and the labour of the people who constructed it. These costs maybe were more than a person could reasonably save without borrowing? Before the 20th century only one in 10 owned their own house or flat. Sure prices have gone up, but so have wages. You haven't demonstrated that because of the existence of borrowing, assets that were once affordable without borrowing now are not. Like I say I can buy a car without borrowing now. In fact we are at the top of an unprecendented housing boom now, but I'm not convinced that you have proved that a house in 1950 say was more affordable than a house in 1990 (or have I misunderstood your point here?). No doubt house prices will revert back to a level in accordance with what people earn soon enough.
  14. Thats actually incredibly arrogant. You seem to have disregarded my objections that price involves other factors including supply and demand and scarcity. As an example of a flaw in your model I gave you cars, which you don't have to borrow money against to buy. It doesn't have to be a car though, a chest of drawers would do just as well. The flaw is that maybe noone wants to pay £110 for whatever your offering regardless of the fact they can borrow it. OK, you are saying that almost noone used to borrow to get a place to live. Now is that actually true? One thing I would mention is that historically, the vast majority of people in Britain didn't own their own homes. I'm certainly not certain that houses weren't bought on credit by the few that did own though. Obviously inheritance of wealth was a huge factor. Secondly you are asserting that prices inevitably rise so that money has to be borrowed to afford whatever asset. You don't actually provide any evidence for that though. On another note. I believe you have that backwards, Britain lost the gold standard after it declined (principally as a result of WW1)
  15. Well no. You have taken some information (which you are calling facts), and constructed them into a hypothesis. It's not mathematical inevitability, it's just what you believe. You seem to be blanketly ignoring non-credit related factors, like scarcity for instance, and supply and demand. If I follow your model to it's logical conclusion then I shouldn't be able to buy anything without borrowing, because someone else who wants it more can just borrow some money and out-bid me. And yet I never borrow to buy a car for instance. Right, so when you are talking about inevitable total economic collapse you actually mean a decline for a while. That's leaving aside your highly debatable proposition that it was excess credit that killed those empires.
  • 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.