Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

boynamedsue

Members
  • Content Count

    462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About boynamedsue

  • Rank
    HPC Regular

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.hipnobuho.com
  • ICQ
    0
  1. The labour policy will practically eliminate BTL mortgages, as it will quickly become politically impossible to place a limit on mortgage borrowing for potential-homeowners while allowing it for BTLers. This is what we all want isn't it?
  2. "We all know"....you mean the press says because they want to protect the wealthy and starve the poor? Dianne Abbott grew up in a rough part of London, but went to Cambridge and became the first black woman in parliament in her early 30's. She is far more intelligent than the majority of MPs. That she muddled up some numbers in a live interview does not show she is incapable of doing maths, tonnes of pols have done similar or worse, without being crucified for it. But that's a "free press" for you. As they say, Conservative voters fall into two categories, millionaires and idiots: to know which one you are, look in your wallet. With UKIP voters, it's a similar pattern, except the only millionaire who votes UKIP is bankrolling the party.
  3. Interest rates wouldn't be part of it, they would only be allowed to use controls on mortgage availability. I suspect this would very quickly mean the end of BTL mortgages.
  4. Would this change anybody's vote? Labour considers house price inflation target for the bank of England All the other parties seem to have an economic policy which can be summed up as either "everything as bad as it is now"(UKIP, Tories, Farage) or "the immediate reintroduction of 2007" (Lib Dems, CUK, Green). Allowing the BoE to regulate mortgages to limit house price growth seems ideal to me.
  5. http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/a-guide-to-bitcoin-the-amazing-investment-based-on-dream-gold-invented-by-a-wizard-20171208140575 I think this more or less sums up my feeling on the topic. We should also be able to use really difficult to make minecraft structures as currency, at least they would have aesthetic value.
  6. Tell me what proportion of Barcelona residents need bitcoins? If your answer is higher than 0%, I'd like to see some working out
  7. I remember listening to an old lady talking to her friend about a flat in the country that she was thinking of selling, in Barcelona, 2006. "Never sell houses," The lady said. "Never, ever sell!" If she listened to her friend's advice, she lost about 200k in Euro. The difference is that at least she still has a house now the market has crashed, bitcoins will be worth nothing
  8. They've corrected it now, it's a good job the OP actually quoted the article, as they have merely changed it without admitting their "mistake". Still, lots have people have seen the ridiculous lie, and believed it because it fits with what they want to believe... job done for the Telegraph. It's amazing how anyone can believe something like this, probably the kind of people who get special compasses made without north on them.
  9. It's actually worse than that. The journalist found a stat about Liverpool's current unemployment rate (which is around 1 in 3, including students and those on various forms of disability), he then wrote an article claiming that this number represented the number of people who had never worked in Liverpool, playing on his readers prejudices about benefit claimants and scousers. Now when Liverpool corpy e-mail the paper to complain, they will apologise and claim that the journalist had misunderstood the figures, but no harm was intended. Then they print a correction, as the PCC code requires... at the bottom of page 47, below the pictures of toffs who are getting married or the Iranian beach volleyball results or summat. Net result? The paper has managed to knowingly publish untrue political propaganda, which will stick in the minds of its readers, without falling foul of the PCC.
  10. Love this thread. About 10 posts back someone points out that the story is simply (and easily verifiably) not true, and everyone just carries on as if nothing has been said. By the way, Liverpool's student population is around 40k, and its total population is 450k. When you hear that the percentage not currently working is 31%, in a place with 40k students and a history of long term structural unemployment, in the middle of a recession, it's not really shocking at all. As for scousers not leaving to find work, Liverpool's population has actually halved since 1930, as a response to the city's economic decline.
  11. Both has worked and does work. Various developed countries have controlled rents today, and throughout the seventies there were controlled rents in the private sector in the UK, also during the fifties and early sixties. The reason we had the hell-bubble was not just mortgage loosening, but the rent deregulation of the Thatcher and Major governments.
  12. Well, that's your ideological point of view, I disagree, but you are welcome to it. But I take bit of an issue when you say that the government "says there is a social problem". Inadequate housing is a social problem, and unless you take your view that social problems are nobody's business but those who suffer from them, then they don't just say there is a social problem, there is a social problem. Without government intervention, then these problems get worse, and if you advocate a stateless solution you are advocating people living in conditions of utter misery (and not through choice, but through circumstance).
  13. Simple solution, rent controls. Put a ceiling on rent district by district and you could cut HB by however much you feel like. Would also push down house prices. Job's a fish. Re Injin: I've lived for many years in places where people are not prevented from assembling their own shelter, and I think you'll find the social problems caused by this far outweigh the minor inconveniences of very low level homelessness, slight over-crowding and a high social housing budget. Cholera, Typhoid, abandonned children and chips anybody?
  14. Nobody ever said that. Ever. Climate changes, it always has. It can cause problems, and it can make life easier. On a planet with 6 billion people, the climate change that a massive change in the quantity of Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause will be disastrous. Which is silly and backed by no evidence. Unlike the mass of evidence that climate is changing, and that extra CO2 in the atmosphere causes increased temperatures. Mate, this is a thread about peak oil, and you've deliberately turned it onto the topic of climate change. Why? Because you are a nutter who has an obsession, and evidently zero knowledge of science. The theory of GW due to human influence may be wrong, and I've a fairly open mind on that, but the rice demonstration has absolutely nothing to do with that. The Earth's climate is a sensitive system that is composed of many sub-systems that feed back off each other. The fact that the Earth is (usually) habitable, rather than a ball of ice, is due to the Greenhouse effect, a system which allows the Earth to retain a larger amount of the sun's heat. The strength of this effect changes over the years, sometimes gradually and sometimes catastrophically (which doesn't mean what you think BTW), due to various factors ranging from the configurations of the continents, to the level of volcanic activity to the type of organisms which predominate at any given time. Now, I might be wrong, but I can't see how a modest increase in over all Greenhouse Gas levels will not be enough to increase this effect by a few degrees. This will bring into play other feedback mechanisms which will further increase greenhouse gas levels, throwing the system into catastrophic (which both does and doesn't mean what you think it does this time) change. You might be right about climate change, but even if you are, it's for the wrong reasons. If you think that cheap demagoguery like this rice trick is convincing evidence, you are a fool. Stable systems can be thrown out of balance by very small changes, especially when those systems are very complex. There, right at the end I brought it back to Economics......
  15. Try believing evidence before you believe what you want to believe. Only a scientific illiterate would pay any attention to the two videos you link. If you need telling why, then you are dum, if you don't, you are dishonest.
×
×
  • 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.