Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Meerkat

  1. You don't need play with taxes - you are not that stupid not to understand that so why peddle it? Especially given that an average middle class man or woman already pays well above 50% in taxes (direct and indirect) and that's before excessive rent or mortgage payments kick in that wouldn't be there if the government had not used much of those taxes to distort the real estate market beyond recognition. Less taxes and intervention is the solution to the problems caused by them in the first place.
  2. Indeed sir... This is a variation of socialism known as economic fascism. Most people foolishly assume they have an ideological choice when they participate in elections. Effectively, the choice is between different variations of philosophical marxism... In principle, I believe Rees-Mogg has a point there. The only trouble is that a lot of other things need to be undone to make everyone equal (basically, restore free market). But, ok, sticking to this superficially narrow topic, all mortgage payments should then also be made tax deductible..
  3. Iron logic. Is there a course where they teach you to use Somalia as an instructive example to instil it into the people that less of state intervention in economic matters must and will result in a failed state/society? You are not the first deep state fan here to use this specific example.
  4. No, i did not know it. But again, where is the problem - immigrants or HTB? Of course, vested interests will attack. There is nothing wrong with immigration unless it is created by welfare state in so many different ways. It would both decrease in size and increase in quality if the dead hand of the state did not extend to so many areas where it should not be involved.
  5. I don't disagree with this assessment, but one should go after the source of the disease which has nothing to do with immigrants - they only highlight the problem. In fact, if there was not this temporary fake boom, there would also be less of immigrants doing many jobs in and around the construction. The good news is many will have no sensible alternative but to leave when the inevitable bust happens.
  6. You are quite right observing the outcome, but the causes? Unless there is some misunderstanding and just like Locke you agree that the state and its regulatory, re-distributive power must be cut back to level the playing field for everyone.
  7. This theory has been proved to be blatantly wrong and yet you still peddle it. How many million people have died globally because of this doctrine? You are even contradicting yourself I suspect as some of the ills you rant about have been brought about not by capitalism proper, but its exact opposite (i.e. omnipotent state), not least through usurping the function of money and credit supply. (The income inequality would be lower and there would be less of the poor if the state and its cronies had a lesser role to play in our daily lives.)
  8. I'm not saying that immigration has no effect. But it isn't an elephant, maybe an ant in itself if thought out properly. There are numerous far more important factors to start with. I will start with the most obvious and latest rigging of the market: HTB. Will you honestly disagree that this scheme is far less important than immigration? Otherwise, we could go on and on and on. Just the other month, was it on the Beeb or ITV, can't recall but caught a moment where a journalist interviewed campers of Middle Eastern or African origin as to why they so desperately want to reach the Blighty rather than stay at their point of arrival in the EU. (A hint - because this island is more pronounced welfare state than any other options on the continent. Need I suggest a natural solution that would in parallel cut housing costs, house prices to more natural levels? And also make many on the benefits go and fill quite a few of those roles immigrants are currently filling? Only folks who can sustain themselves would be allowed in or even willing to come. ) Honest money and banking would be the next level to take to, but part and parcel of abandoning the welfare state. Moaning about immigrants, may I also remind you, is actually one of the 10 Marx's socialism tenets. Actually worse, he suggested the state should go after them and expropriate.
  9. No, it isn't, time to learn some economics? As always, symptoms and unintended consequences get confused with causes.
  10. A nice place, lovely scenery. Been there. A serious contender for a place with friendly taxation regime combined with very high quality of life; knowing a local language would help a lot. Here's an English expat's assessment: https://andorraguides.com/living/what-it-is-like/
  11. Except that in a free market the outcomes (and winners and losers) are determined by the consumer (not a central planning body or dice). Inequality has only increased since abandonment of sound money with central planners in charge. Not to say free markets solve everything, but it is a vast improvement over crony capitalism or outright socialism.
  12. More like Barclay's rewarding themselves by dropping the pain of collecting 5 quid a month to collect 4000 - the whole thing there must have some "nice" memory on top of plain math. I guess you can also imagine what chances the "lucky" mum has of ever getting a credit line of any sorts or, indeed, getting into any contract where credit checks need carrying out. Hardly anything to celebrate.
  13. Mate, you are quite right at observing that the final descent into the current cesspit was embarked upon some 40 years ago, 40+ actually. I think what you are still to digest properly is that it was not libertarians or Austrians that put most of the western world on the slippery slope we are all rightly concerned about. In fact, you couldn't be further away from the truth. To call the system which is increasingly a mishmash of socialism and fascism as something fundamental is quite something. For starters, would you like to familiarise yourself with the concept of honest money? You know like gold. That naturally inhibits credit expansion and inflation. Last shackles that tied a certain government to a gold standard were abandoned 40+ years ago. It is no coincidence that the government controlled cartels of banks were able to embark globally on an unprecedented credit expansion and deficit spending spree that we are yet to see a finish of. 45 or so years later. It is also no coincidence that the well-being of the common man peaked exactly 45 years or so ago (specifically in the states). And it is, of course, exactly the purpose of the whole set-up to squeeze the wealth from unsuspecting "middle class" sheople. With the the help of the government that pretends to be protecting and working for the said class, bt actually does everything possible to fleece it to enrich certain corporates and increase its own dead weight on the society.
  14. Yes, morally repugnant and economically unsound. They will never go after the causes, but tackle all sorts of unintended consequences of idiotic policies to get the folk in an ever bigger quagmire.
  15. The CBs did not exist 100y and some ago... and world got by just fine with the boom and bust cycles being generally both shallower and shorter in duration - as you rightly said... Also, if only the CBs were after smoothing of something - if anything, they are there to protect vested interests and generally act as the chieftain of state sponsored banking cartel...
  16. Rates need to be where the actual demand and supply for loans/term deposits dictates them to be, not a body of central planners. Needless to say we are as far as possible from anything natural in this area and the eventual fall-out from this criminal dis-balance and resulting malinvestment will be magnitudes more ugly than it would be in any unfettered set-up.
  17. If you "got" that the cartel has been created by the government (the CB), then you wouldn't be posing it as a free market problem. Do you understand that the fiat fractional reserve banking is not a market choice?
  18. How nice. As I said, only a true humankind hater can say stuff like this. Some people maybe d1cks. To the extent this problem is subject to law, courts and prisons deal with it. Otherwise, the way to deal with d1cks proper a.k.a. sociopaths is not to create conditions in which they prosper, but make sure they find a better way to deliver something useful to the society. D1cks redistributing resources and controlling the most important government institution (fiat central bank) and perverting economic incentives of people is hardly a solution to the problem.
  19. I'm not sure what is your message there and why would you want to invoke Smith, the very root of modern day libertarianism. That humans are imperfect and driven by want to better their own condition? Nobody is arguing that it is otherwise. Nobody is arguing that there is no place for state's monopoly in certain areas that cannot be sorted out by the market itself. The argument here is if a nanny/fascist/semi-socialist state extracting more than 50% from the economy thru taxation (and making middle class effectively pay 60-70% of their income in direct and indirect taxes) ,sustaining and encouraging monopolies of various sorts, penalising success and enforcing all sorts of dumb and cumbersome regulation is the way forward. As you seem to be a great fan of Smith and his prescience, let me quote some of his wisdom from "The Wealth of Nations": "The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations." "It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense, either by sumptuary laws, or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries." "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages." "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." So, according to you, what type of governance vision Smith had? A monstrosity extracting absurd amounts from an economy to redistribute wealth and having control over the ugliest and most unfair monopoly that has ever existed? Or a limited government that does not encourage the above and occupies itself with business where no market can be established?
  20. I gave you some examples. The best one is the United States before the establishment of the Fed especially and until the complete erosion of any reference to honest money in early 1970s. The fact that the state has usurped so many of market functions nowadays does in no way prove that it is better way to deliver to masses. Founding fathers knew it; as Jefferson put it: “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." And to other people here confusing government and society here is one by Bastiat: "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law – by force – and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes." That you have no experience of living in a more market dominated economy does not mean they never existed or do not exist.
  21. Sigh indeed... Never have I stated that the world with smaller government and less interventions would be some sort of a paradise. But relatively to big government, nanny state & crony capitalism it is a huge improvement. Relativity. There is no better alternative than letting the market work where it can work if you want to raise the general living standard. By the way, someone always pays for the roads and education. With education, I would like choice. Infrastructure we can discuss. Now, what about ponzi style intergeneration social security scheme, what about bubble blowing CBs, government deficit spending?What about housing benefit, what about HBT and things of this sort?
  22. Free market is always better if free competition can be established (independently of the nature of the service/good.) That obviously may exclude certain infrastructure pieces, emergency services and so on (not least the monopoly on violence thru police and army). But as I have stated a few times in other threads and years on this forum, it would be fantastic if our real trouble was confined to these borderline cases. Unfortunately, the real trouble is not an odd fly, but the elephants in the china shop - all sorts of welfare to start with... And yes - people should be given real choice with things like health and education by being able to choose the provider. Those going for non-state solutions should be able to opt out by paying commensurately less tax. If the state is so much better, then it should have no problem beating competition. But then again they say the state hates competition....
  23. That much can be easily detected - the rough occupation of yours. As to why people with libertarian views (and empirical & theoretical evidence supporting their views) are nut jobs I struggle to understand. An attempt with a sane argument would do better than than name calling.
  24. I was actually the other day. The reason being another handsome increase in the council tax bill: +5.9%. This year even no BS accompanying as to why. Meanwhile, I have not noticed any improvement in services in the past years with this tax up smth like 20%. In fact, roads increasingly degrading, had my first ever tire puncture caused by a pothole this year. Then you read about the unfunded future pension holes and one wonders not where staggering amounts of this tax will be going into. As for the original inquiry about seriousness, it was about you suggesting an interesting causality, i.e. sounded as if a big government is something caused by market forces. Or did I misread it? But then again it was one of Marx's suggestions (that he failed to prove as of course certain type of of unnatural assistance is always required) - that the socialism is inevitable. Anyway, returning back to McDonnell and current Labour leaders, one thing I will hand to them - the relative honesty. About their intentions and ideas. Unlike other garden varieties of the same core philosophy masquerading as something else , they are honest about their intentions (though oblivious to consequences). And some rare sanity by Corbyn regarding the hysteria surrounding Skripal's poisoning.
  • 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.