Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

boynamedsue

Members
  • Posts

    468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by boynamedsue

  1. 1. Agree 2. Immigrants can't vote in general elections until they become British Citizens. Not many have, friends of mine who have been here 20 years are still not naturalised. 3. Benefit claimants have little reason to thank labour, benefit levels are frozen well below inflation (real or imagined). The fact that you don't like a group of people doesn't make them automatic labour voters.
  2. Another juvenile set of catchphrases strung together. The fact of the matter is that for a monthly payment the state protects me from the actual men with guns, provides me with healthcare, educates my children and, theorectically at least, feeds and houses me during hard times. It also stops spivs from selling me adulterated or dangerous goods which can do me or my family harm. I would prefer a collectivist solution that excluded the state, and if the state became actually rather than potentially tyranical I would fight to establish one, but that doesn't mean that I'm not aware that the market would watch me starve to death and not give a f··K. The market is nobody's friend, and without the state to mollify its effects, it would lead to slavery and horror you are obviously incapable of imagining.
  3. FAO Injin (I've just realised that out of context it looks really weird) Sigh. Let's just imagine that the man with a gun isn't a taxman, but is an ACTUAL MAN WITH A GUN. So let's imagine that a policeman hears a commotion and runs up the stairs of your house to find you dressed as milk maid and the armed man taking his sexual pleasure of you in the most depraved way possible. At the side of the bed is a bag marked swag filled with your wordly goods. The policeman swings into property protection mode and brays the gunman over the head with 12 inches of English oak. There, the state is protecting your property rights, and for a comparatively modest fee. Do you want another go at saying how capitalism could function without the state stopping our sex-pest burglar from robbing or harming you, or at least deterring him from doing so? Your property would simply become his because he was stronger than you. You never get round to answering how free exchange of goods could occur with no state to protect this process. Now please don't get all Ayn Rand on me and pretend we're all dragon ninjas....
  4. If there is welfare provision, I would say you are moving towards collectivist Anarchism, something I have a lot of sympathy for. I agree with you 100% about Russia. No matter what you thought of the USSR, the wholesale theft of the Russian people's property by the former communist elite is a crime of historic proportions. How many Babushkas froze to death to win the league for CFC? And that's not counting the thousands driven to emmigrate and the collapse of the birth rate and huge rise in infant mortality.
  5. It's like talking to a child. If a man with a gun comes and takes your money off you, the government will send a man with a gun to recover that money, and punish the first man with a gun. This means that you can accumulate capital, and possessions, without fear that it will be taken off you. This state protection of property is what allows capitalism to flourish. Was that Witgenstein or John Stuart Mill? Confucious he say "ner ner ne nerner!" Ok, I point out that without regulation Capitalism turns everything it touches into either sh1t or money, the money is private but the sh1t is given free to the grateful public. I even give you a real life example (I can suggest a book for you to read given much more detail, if you really are interested).Your response? You put your fingers in your ears and keep repeating "Napoli isn't really capitalist, capitalism has never been tried." Where have I heard something similar? Ah, yes.... "Russia isn't really Communist...." Hungry scared people will kill for money. That IS an indisputable fact of human history. Libertarianism would create a lot of hungry scared people. Look, I'm sorry for giving you a kicking, but you need to look beyond your own blinkered ideology. The real world works nothing like an economics text book, stop thinking in cliches and start thinking for yourself mate. You'll feel worse for it, but it'll do you good.
  6. woops, you're losing it panda-guzzler. 1. That's an instance of barter. Barter is not capitalism, barter is a means of exchange based on the exchange of goods and services without the use of money. Capitalism is an economic system based on the accruing of private profits. However the fact that your neighbours lawnmower wasn't taken off him by armed men is probably down to the protection of private property which is one of the main functions of the state, and the one which makes capitalism possible. 2. I have a partial description of how the economy works today, I extrapolate from that changes I want to make in order obtain outcomes I desire. My understanding is partial, as I have incomplete information, just as Marx, Friedman, Keynes and von Hayek did. 3. How would you know what was poisoning you? Do you know where your food comes from, and do you have a real choice about it? The only way we know food is safe is when the government Health and Safety bodies enforce certain agreed standards. In southern Italy a form of cowboy capitalism exists which makes the enforcement of these norms impossible. Agricultural land is regularly contaminated with mercury, battery acid and industrial waste, the farmers are compensated by the industrialists, or burnt out if they refuse to cooperate. This is not a story I have made up, it's how the free market works now, and how it worked before governemnts regulated food standards and land use. Companies cut costs, it is their nature, if it is cheaper to pay lawsuits than implement solutions that save lives, they pay the lawsuits and laugh all the way to the bank. 4. ?????????. Shooting people with a private army is a very effective way of stifling dissent. All this talk of men with guns, I wonder if you have the first clue as to what it means to be physically in fear of your life because powerful people will kill you unless you do what they want. Are you a student of some kind?
  7. Economists can't prove anything, it's not a science, no matter how much it pretends to be. It's a way of interpreting incomplete data about an immensely complex system. I'm fully aware of Von Hayek's theories too, but that's what they are, theories. The main failing in their teories is the fact that they do not recognise that the state and capitalism are symbiotic in capitalist or semi-capitalist societies. Capitalism can't funtion without the state to protect it from its opponents and its own excesses. I'll tell you what happens when people are poisoned. It's 10 years down the line and people are dying of strange cancers, nobody knows who's been poisoned by what parcel of poisoned land, and there is no coordinated investigating body to look into it. If by some miracle a latter day Quincey (possibly a kind-hearted millionaire, or an insurance agent, some of the poisonee's will have been insured) manages to link scientifically the polluters and the victims through the food that they have consumed, there might be a trial (by the way, who is going to assign values to human life in your Capitalist wonderland?), and perhaps some compensation will be paid to the insurance company. However, given that the wealthy have a tendency to buy justice through better lawyers and access to lawmakers (or in this case, compensation setters, as there would be no laws) I would be surprised if the matter ever came anyway near a tribunal, as it would be cheaper to pay off a few key people. The company would of course keep on polluting as there would be no law to stop them. There you go, I have just described for you the economic system in areas where the rule of law is absent, but capitalism present. It's pretty much like that today in parts of Italy. This scenario would probably be supported by the threat of violence, as the most cost effective way of securing your own way is through intimidation. I find it incredibly naive of you to believe that a profit-seeking organisation would refrain from killing its opponents for ideological reasons, indeed it would probably be dereliction of duty to its shareholders if it did so. If you want to see government by men with guns, please come to Napoli, and perhaps you'll stop repeating that trite catchphrase like a rosary. But even without this element, the system would be (literally and metaphorically) toxic for anyone but the rich and powerful.
  8. We were talking about the contamination of agricultural land by companies dumping pollutants on it. Agricultural land is owned, but the companies pay the farmer to allow them to dump contaminants there. The farmer is quids in, the company saves money and no one has any problem, except for the poor sods who have to eat the food. This process is a beautiful example of anarcho-capitalism in action, as practiced by the Napolitan Camorra. If you don't like it, buy different food, except you can't because the company has more money so it can buy up all the land it wants to poison, and there's nobody to tell you what food is safe and what's poisoned. And finally, where is your evidence that the housing bubble is caused by government intervention? Just saying it every 3rd post doesn't make it true.
  9. I see what you are saying. But do people have fredom to live where they want now? I think that reason that this site is so popular is that the answer to this question is a resounding no. We have less freedom to live where we want than we did in the 70's and 80's, it's just that the rationing process today is primarily by cash and accesability of credit. We need to look at the size of the crash that's coming, whatever happens we need an extension of social housing, and fiscal measures to punish BTL and discourage multiple ownership. If the crash is a whopper, there may be no other alternative than massive government intervention to break the cycle. If you look at the graph on the front page it looks like the boom/bust cycle is amplified every time, can we go on like that for ever?
  10. They are, through charities and the choices made by their democratic representatives. The places where they have least protection, and have become extinct are the places where there was no democracy only dictatorships backing the "free" market. Do you really believe that by having more money means that you have more right to decide on what is done with the earth's resources? Should people have a right to pollute indicriminately? Because at the moment I live in a country where that happens, and I'll tell you, the results aren't pretty. I haven't got the resources to pay for the clean up, so why is the company's freedom to tip boric acid over farmland which produces the food I eat superior to my freedom from being poisoned by Camorra bastards? If you like unregulated capitalism so much, I suggest you move to Naples, Sicily or Somalia
  11. Ah but they are, my morally imbecilic little friend. There are dozens of tiger farms in China today, the tigers are kept in conditions so filthy and appalling that the chinese government (one of the most economically laissez faire in the world) is moving to shut them down. The reason that people like you are so frightening is that you are unable to see any qualitative difference between the tiger surviving as the apex predator in a pristine natural environment, and its survival as a battery farm animal, a suffering mockery of itself. Millions want the freedom to live in a world where tigers exist in the wild, but the only freedom that counts to you is the freedom of a few hundred to make money from exterminating them.
  12. The first part of your statement is just plain stupid, so I won't bother answering it. The second part is so exceptionally stupid that I will... Tigers are very valuable. They're not doing so well at the moment. Is the problem that they're overprotected? Perhaps if they were freed of all the red tape of tiger reserves and trade bans on their body parts they would become more common.
  13. I would agree that there will be abuse of any system, but it doesn't need to be watertight, just strong enough to protect against widespread speculation. If 100,000 people are running a fiddle on a house each, it still wouldn´t be enough to start another bubble. Plus, there wouldn't be half the incentive to do so as houses wouldn't be seen as investments, but places to live. As for British B&Bs, most of the ones I've been to look like they're run by the DSS already.
  14. You are arguing for capitalism without property rights. That is crazy. In your brave new world, what is to stop me from knocking down stonehenge and putting up a peddledashed thatched trailer in its place? Or indeed, who could stop me from building on sites of scientific and ecological interest? If I want to eat so many pandas that they become extinct, should I be allowed to do so? Who would I pay compensation to?
  15. You were right, I wasn´t being ironic. 1. Fat may be a feminist issue, but I wouldn't say this was. A couple owning one house between them seems fair enough to me. Your fella could sell his instead if that was what the both of you decided. The sons and daughters issue is not so complex. I don't see anything wrong with parents buying them a house if the kids are living there, if not it counts as abuse of the system and artificial price inflation. Go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect big fat wads of unearned income 2. In a way, yes. Rented accomodation would be through social landlords. This would reduce rents, as nobody would need to make a profit, it would also suppress house prices. The main focus of these measures would be to remove all speculative demand from the market. Problem solved....of course something else would move into a bubble cycle, but it wouldn't be compulsory to get involved, as it is in the case of the housing market.
  16. In what way could the lack of regulation prevent another housing bubble? In my opinion the only sure way to stop another Tulip craze with patios is to remove the market from the equasion, and put housing allocation under democratic control. The market is the problem not the solution.
  17. I don´t know why nobody has suggested the most obvious solution to the problem. Make it illegal to own more than one house. Nobody needs two houses. Houses would start to serve a social function rather than an economic one, and we would all live happily ever after in a landlord-free utopia.
  18. Hiya. You're dead on (unless we're all missing something ), but it's not the position that I'm agreeing with MM about. I think that if the recession comes, the country's going to have to have a plan to move on, and sneering, laughing and pointing won't do trick. Scott Hiya, thanx for your welcome. Took three days cause me internet was down. Boynamedsue comes from my love of Johnny Cash, rather than any childhood hermaphroditism. Cheers BNS
  19. I'm new on here, and taking into consideration the reception Methodman has received, i think I'll take this opportunity to state my VI. I suspect that house prices are going to crash 20-30%, and it would be good for my personal finances if they did so. I also expect there to be a recession because I don't believe an economy can be run on the basis of constantly increasing the indebtedness of wage-workers, whilst leaving their salaries at roughly the same level. An immense failure of the free-market, like the one I believe we are seeing, would also go a long way to making me feel my political views were vindicated. There, now can I continue without someone hysterically shouting "troll"? I worry that MM might be right, that there is a belief in the value of "bricks and mortar" that will somehow cause a stabilisation of prices at their current (ridiculously high) levels, or perhaps a 4 year stint of below inflation growth. I worry that what I want to be happening (what on the face of it must be happening given the obviously ludicrous expansion of public, private and nation/nation debt the anglo-saxon economies have built up) isn't happening. As things are, I still think we can only be in for a long recession, unless the emperor turns out to be wearing clothes after all. Having said that, a bad recession would be horrible for absolutely everybody in the UK, it would lead to the kind of suffering that I only remember from the days of the miners strike. People here sound ghoulish when they bay for repossessions and IVAs, and to an extent MM is right, most of us want other people to suffer these personal disasters so we can have access to the benefits we feel have been denied us by not joining in the madness. Frankly it's a bit sick. If the recession comes, and houses crash back to something reasonable, we need to be arguing for policies that keep them there, that mean that no-one ever speculates with housing again. Then maybe a house will be viewed as a human right for everybody, not an investment. Otherwise we're just a bunch of tw*ts with laptops.
×
×
  • 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.