Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by boynamedsue

  1. As of now I'm capable of looking after myself, as are you. Quite a few people on Incap benefit could too, if they were forced to. But most incap sorts are incapable of contributing economically, for reasons that are beyond their control. And we might wind up in that situation our selves, through no fault of our own. Cars crash, people get sick, marriages break up, social drinkers move up to the big leagues. That's what incap's there for.
  2. Firstly, I defend benefits as a safety net within the current system (which I would like to be replaced with a different one). Are you saying this means I shouldn't be allowed access to economic books, or to buy my own home because of this? Soz charver, but that doesn't compute. Secondly, the unemployed receive benefits which put them well below subsistence level, even taking housing benefit into consideration. I couldn't buy meat when I was on the dole, for example. It may not be what you read in the Daily Mail, but it's true. Incapacity benefit is a different question. You can live on incap, but to claim it you have to convince a doctor you are unable to work. Many, many people have health problems which mean they are unable to find work in the areas they live, and are either too poor or too ill to travel to a place where they can work. Many more people are unfit to work for psychological reasons, often related to substance abuse. For incappers we have 3 choices: 1. Create work that they are capable of doing. 2. Pay them a wage to stay alive and out of trouble. 3. Leave them to their own devices. They'd flit in and out of work and die 30 years younger than everybody else (of something preventable), create crime, and raise a geneneration of REAL monsters. Creating work would almost certainly cost more than the benefits (as if there was anything worthwhile for them to do that added value to the economy, they'd be doing it), 3 would be (to my mind) immoral and socially disasterous, so we're left with 2. The real problem will come when REAL Thatcher-style unemployment returns. The real unemployed will only get JSA at 60 quid a week... blood on the streets.
  3. Do you know how much the dole is? 58 quid a week for over 25s. Do you think that people can afford sky, daily pub trips and 2 weeks in Spain a year on 240 notes a month? You are actually complaining about the working class, because someone who has been 2 years on the dole would find that kind of lifestyle a distant beautiful dream. How nice to see those lazy "chav" stereotypes given another airing on HPC, let's not let the facts get in the way, eh? If only the scum could be induced to stop buying houses, all our problems would be solved...
  4. To be fair, all parties in Spain supported HPI, just as the tories would have in England. The boom started under Aznar, and was well under way in 2004, when ZP got in. The only thing any government could have done would have been high interest rates and start a massive provision of social housing. In Spain, social housing means constructing houses for sale at "reduced" prices. Who is elegible is decided by lottery (a process open to obvious corruption, in a recent Barcelona draw, of 120 flats, 3 went to relatives of the Barcelona FC chairman. Free season tickets anyone?). This would have done no good. In Spain there have been several inflation adjusted crashes, but, because of the bogroll like qualities of the peseta, there has never been a nominal crash. Even in 2007, nobody I talked to believed there could possibly be a crash. In short, the problem is Spain not ZP, compared to Blair and Berlusconi, he has been an excellent PM. However, the last election was a great one to lose...
  5. You are 100% correct. How irritating.
  6. With respect Einstein, I don't think you could be more wrong if you were stood outside a junior school with your pants round your ankles. There is a chronic over supply of flats, even in Barcelona. The problem is they are left empty. Now finance is unavailable for Spaniards, city prices will have to crash. Coastal prices are crashing because of a combination of forced sale and investor panic and nobody can get a mortgage for love nor money. Salary multiples were ridiculously high, people were taking 50 year mortgages. Nobody is buying. The Spanish crash will be worse than the British one because of the phenomena of multiple flat ownership, many peoèple have 3 or 4 flats, of which one is used, one under occupied and 1 or 2 empty. With prices falling, there is a panic to liquidate 3 and 4. When jobs are lost 1 and 2 will be repossessed. It's a nightmare. Winkie: that's impressive, I reckon I'll buy up Ronda some time round 2010.
  7. Where is the sub 50k property? The last time I checked we were still looking at €100k floor. Spanish median household income will be closer to 13k I'd say. 43% of workers earn less than €1000 a month. Many people borrowed 15xsalary over 40-50 years at the top of the boom, and the properties are in a terrible state in many cases.
  8. Is this the question I didn't answer? (Re choosing between providers of violence and sticking to the state monopoly) In elections, time and time again, the population votes to maintain the state monopoly of violence. If you oppose this, stand on a Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome ticket (though I've always thought of you as more of a Monster Raving Loony). You ask why people aren't allowed to choose different violence providers if they are so keen on the state monopoly. This is a category error, a monopoly of violence precludes the existence of other legitimate providers of violence. They have already made their choice, and their choice is not to choose. The reason I didn't answer this point earlier (as you snottily pointed out) is that your question makes no sense, and I therefore let it float by. Finally we agree. Competing claims on the table: I believe that we have to look at the table produced as partially belonging to the collective, as the materials used belonged to the collective, and the collective has invested time and effort in raising you and developing the technology to make the axe. You disagree, but these are matters of opinion not fact. As to me making unsupported assertions, you are the one who claims healthcare will be "better" (define) if we get rid of the state. Something you have no evidence for, like all of your assertions re the wonders of the post-state world. You're political beliefs are utopian fantasies, they could never work without a massive coercive indoctrination programme and huge economic police force to back them up. Anyway, as much as I love arguing with rabid ideologues, I think I'm gonna call this thread a day. The new Garcia Marquez and a bag of purple doves are awaiting my perusal.
  9. Don't be so stupid. Of course he wants it, he just doesn't want to pay for it, and thinks he can get away with it. He is enjoying the benefit of a social good at no personal charge. If he is made to pay, he will. If the system looks like breaking down, he may begin to contribute. He is free-loading of the others.
  10. No. I want a government that guarantees education, food, shelter and medical care for all its citizens, from the cradle to the grave. I want it to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Other people have different expectations from the state. That's called politics. Other people believe that if we get rid of the state the magical market fairy will come and make it all better again. That is called delusional. Modern states are not perfect, but without them people will starve. Firstly: By using the tree, you as an individual are depriving everybody else of its use. That is an initiation of force, an act of theft if you will. I believe that land is a common resource, so a society has a right to decide on who can use it and how. Finders keepers is not the basis of an enlightened world view. Secondly: You say you own the tree, and have armed men to back your claim up, then send someone to cut it down on your behalf, giving them only a small part of the tree. What have you done to make it yours, except for being stronger than the man who cut the tree? Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  11. Quite right, it was you who started on about voluntary taxation though. You would be asking a very leading question based Libertarian/Anarcho-capitalist political logic. Perhaps the best question would be "Do you support the abolition of taxation even if that means some people may have no healthcare, food, housing or police protection?". I confidently predict the answer will be "big-fat-no" The system makes us all behave the same way? Really? I, for one, enjoy dressing in women's clothing and reading South American magical realist novels whilst high on pills. Are you also in drag? The rest of the above paragraph is ridiculous, and the idea that only the state can coerce is laughable. If you want to see coercion, get rid of the state and see what you end up having to do for food. Ask Somalians how they feel about their freedom from coercion. Property is not a fact of nature, it is what is acknowledged by society as belonging to any given individual. Property can't exist without a state to guarantee it, to rule where it ends and who it belongs to. Otherwise property becomes merely whatever you can personally defend.
  12. The Africa thing's a load of old sh1te really isn't it? But apart from that you've got a good point: council housing needs extending, collective provision of transport and dentistry needs improving, the rich should be taxed till the pips squeak, and a lot of NHS managers want drowning in the Wash. But it's up to us to get people into power to do that.
  13. That's not true, many people would choose to pay taxation, if they could see benefit in it for themselves or for society. A large majority of people would prefer to live in a society where taxation was obligatory (in fact that is the situation now) than in a society without collective provision of healthcare and emmergency housing. Opinion polls suggest that even in the Us this is true. People also prefer to have an established monopoly of violence, than to be forced to choose from competing suppliers. Howabout everybody's different, and property's not a fact, it's a matter of opinion.
  14. What absolute cack. The collection of taxes is approved explicitly by the majority of citizens who participate in the democratic process and vote for pro-taxation parties, and tacitly by the lack of protest against the existence of the state. The only people who seriously disagree with this are madmaxista internet libertarians, who generally have no conception of the savagery they wish to unleash on the world.
  15. It seems to me that the interventionist states of Europe, France, Germany, the Nordic countries, are the ones that still have real economies prepared to survive the coming economic crisis. The countries that have problems (UK, Ireland, Spain, US) are the ones that have least government intervention. Realism 1, Austrian Bollokcs 0.
  16. Spain isn't nine months ahead of us. Spain is where we would have been in 2010 if the boom had continued into 2009. The salary multiples for mortgages in 2007 (when I was living in Barcelona) were reaching 15 times annual income for A COUPLE, both partners working. An average salary was 12k (Euros) a year, a two bed apartment was 300K. People believed that the only sensible destination for investment was property, I remember hearing an old wifey talking to her friend on the street about a house she had empty; Wifey: "Total, no nos hace falta el piso del pueblo.." ("As it goes, we don't need the flat in the village") Friend: "No vendas eh! Nunca vendas!" ("Don't sell, never sell!") I hope she ignored the advice. Which sums up the Spanish attitude to property, if you have one house, buy another, if you have two, you need three...it doesn't matter if they're left empty, they'll be worth more tomorrow thn they are today. Spanish builders were, in effect, building masive jerry-built estates to be used as savings accounts. They were built to such a low standard because they were never intended to be lived in, merely left empty to appreciate in value. Now prices have crashed, and many of my friends have 40 YEAR motgages on properties I believe will never again be worth what tey paid for them (even accounting for inflation.).
  17. I can see three possible Points of Departure: 1. Allow councils to use the money raised from council house sales to build more council houses, no, make it obligatory. The house price boom couldn't have spiralled so far out of control if THAT F---ING WOMAN hadn't enacted that spiteful dogmatic piece of legislation. 2. Tony Blair. instead of choosing to make his first act as PM the abolition of free secondary education, decides to raise a prohibitive tax on second homes and enforce fair rent legislation. 3. Lenin's death bed condemnation of Stalin is read to the 1924 congress of the Soviet communist party leading to Leon Trotsky's acceptance of the position of head of the Politburo...sorry only messing with you there.
  18. Either a low sample +ve or a big negative, they're re-checking the data.
  19. I suspect they have used a self selecting sample, i.e. asking people on page about people with financial problems whether they use their credit cards to pay their mortgage. If not then we are up that rancid creek, without means to row.
  20. They were off their heads turning it into 9 flats. The only thing that might have worked would be to turn it into 4 lager properties. In any case, you'd want a lot of renovation, those old multiple-pane wooden windows are very draught-y. I'll get my coat.
  21. Sorry, I'm going to say awooga on this. I'm not sure where he's going with it, but I'm 90% sure.
  22. Asylum seekers are usually parked in B & Bs or sent to asylum reception centres (in effect, camps). Hijackers are not given council houses. They are put in prison. If they would be in danger at the end of their sentence, they may be given temporary leave to stay in the UK. Would you prefer to send people to their deaths? Personally, I wouldn't hand anyone over to the Taliban. Clever, clever. You imply that benefits and council housing are not available to British Passport holders, but are given to Asylum seekers. In reality councils give preferential treatment to local people, and asylum seekers are in much more vulnerable housing situations than native Britons. Of course you will backtrack if anyone points out that what you are implying isn't true, but if nobody challenges you, you will have succeded in planting the idea that asylum seekers get preferential treatment in the minds of the readers. Typical BNP/Sun/Mail style racist scare-mongering propaganda. Benefits don't start £180 a week. Asylum Seekers under 25 get £45 a week, over 25 £55 a week. Most asylum applications are rejected [email protected] Have you ever been frightened for your life you smug git? You just haven't got a [email protected] clue.
  23. I suspect Atkinson (of The Mail), though perhaps not Atkinson (of the Grauniad) would include that under protecting existing industry.
  • 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.