Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by boynamedsue

  1. Well done, that's the post with the highest prejudice to evidence ratio I've ever seen on this forum. Economic mobility data shows that people from the lowest social strata have quite a good chance to move to a higher one, even if it is only the next one up, whereas people from higher strata often fall into lower ones. It is extremely rare for a person to be dependent on benefits for their whole working life, and single mothers are very often only economically dependent on the state for a short period of time. Couples dependent on benefits at the time of birth are again usually only dependent for a short period of time. There is a small percentage of perpetually unemployed people, and an even smaller number of them have children. According to the office of national statistics, of people between 34-49, there are only 96,000 who have never worked. What percentage of them have children? Let's generously say 50%, so that's 48,000. Not a very big number. I'm betting we are looking at people who have very low intelligence or other mental health issues, and people who have spent a long time in prison. Britain has a serious problem with social mobility, but to pretend that there is a caste of people who only ever claim benefits, or that people on low wages spawn only monsters, is just feelgood hatred....the kind that came in since political correctness went mad and stopped you slagging off the darkies.
  2. I'm not sure that there will be enough people to do all the jobs that need doing if the BR falls to Italian or Spanish levels. We certainly couldn't support the massive number of economically inactive and medically expensive elderly in 30 years' time if we had those levels of reproduction. Of course, we could do what Spain and Italy did in the late '90s and allow practically uncontrolled immigration. But that would seem a strange way to go about things, and people would be justifiably upset if they were told the couldn't have children because it was cheaper to import fully grown foreigners.
  3. That's also something the government can solve at the stroke of pen. A fair rent office to drive down prices.
  4. Yes, it also explains why we have a birth rate at replacement levels, whereas countries which don't have a survival+ benefit system have birth-rates below 1.5 per woman.
  5. Because those sprogs will be sponsoring you in your old age, no matter if you have private savings or not. A society needs young people to survive, even if the old people have cash. Money doesn't cause goods and services to spring into existance, you need people to do that.
  6. If only you could have proposed this before you deliberately crashed our industries to benefit the financial centre located in your City. Now Britain produces nothing, but is host to the parasitic twats of the square mile, who I believe we just handed over a large share of our GDP to because they failed.
  7. There's about 45% of room to tax top earners more. Have you not heard George Harrison whinging on the taxman? Maybe if tax had been higher the nutter who stabbed him wouldn't have been cared for in the community. Ah, the law of unintended consequences...
  8. Couldn't agree more. Farmers are the biggest, fattest welfare queens in the world. Think about it. You have never met a farmer who hasn't got his hand out, and you've never met a farmer who drives a shit car. Nationalise all the productive land in the country with zero compensation. After all we've paid for it many times over in subsidies.
  9. I also wonder how much is lost through tax fraud every year, I bet it's a hell of a lot more than 1.6 billion. And that's before we look at loopholes...
  10. +1 The armed forces should be reduced to a component in a European defence force, scrap half the navy and air force, and focus on high quality light infantry and what we need to support it, which is what we do best anyway.
  11. They were only uneconomic because the CEGB decided to import child-mined coal from Colombia rather than use British coal, and China's demand had not yet grown to today's levels. Closing the mines was probably the biggest false economy ever.
  12. That's in my top 10 favourite posts of all time, on any forum. Bosses exist to screw as much as they can out of their employees, workers exist to screw as much as they can out of their bosses. Jump through hoops for them and you're a mug, but you are also a mug if you let them know you think that.
  13. If that trend continues indefinitely, and I don't see why it shouldn't, my current silver holdings should be enough to buy Sao Tome and Principe some time in 2016. The really savvy investors will have bought Bolivia though. You know why? Silver mines.
  14. This is silly. Everybody knows that precious metals only ever go up.
  15. Where's the smiley for "bitten on the **** by your own irritating use of smileys"?
  16. Did you read the link? It says the opposite of what you just did.
  17. Devolution was the only hope for continuing the Union, as Scottish labourites realised. Without it the SNP would have swept the board in 2010, and had a population facing a tory government nobody but Malcolm Rifkind voted for. As it is they won't win a referendum.
  18. As your man said, Russia is massive and full of natural resources, and it had an independent nuclear arsenal big enough to kill everybody alive on the planet. We have the Dyson design department and the British Transport Police.
  19. Given Maggie and Major pissed most of your oil up the wall already, we're probably not going to collapse. We would probably lose UN security council status, which makes sense because even with you lot we aren't that important a country, even if we are a semi-nuclear power. An EU security council seat replacing both Britain and France is the obvious answer in the future, but I can't see Johnny Onions putting up with that even in the medium term. G8, we'd probably still just about qualify I think.
  20. Except that the violence in those cases sprang from law and order to start with. People on this thread have mentioned Pol Pot and the French Terror, these atrocities came from excesses of law and order not its break down. It's a bit of an angels on pinheads argumetn, though. It is obvious that humans cooperate naturally, and it usually works. When societies get bigger, this sometimes breaks down in times of stress. This can usually be avoided by sensible and responsible application of laws, and because people only tend to go mental in extremis. However, sometimes the law makers go mental too, and decide it might be a good idea if everybody started killing each other. It's not a difficult thing to see, and it's not really a philiosophical debate, it's just what happens.
  21. Errrrrm, no. This is just silliness. The amount of force necessary to impose your opinions on property would far outweigh the violence of the state. Absolute freedom to do what you want with what you consider to be your property ends in slavery and feudalism, as the brighter "libertarian" thinkers recognise.
  22. A bit late on this thread, but the idea that cavemen had individual property rights is laughable. Hunter-gatherer societies are notable for their near complete absence of individual property. You may approve of the idea of individual property, but it was a concept invented after the invention of agriculture, and almost certainly post-dates the first states.
  23. Yep, as it is a well known fact that an educated and healthy workforce provides no economic benefit whatsoever, whereas sending 50 emails per day to other people within the same organisation magically causes milk and honey to spew forth from the earth.
  24. 20th December 2020 "Don't worry kids, uncle D1ckhead isn't coming for xmas this year, he'll be sitting at home being a miserable [email protected], all alone."
  • 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.