Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

VedantaTrader

Members
  • Posts

    1,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VedantaTrader

  1. So a rental yield of 3.45%, that is still a total rip off and over valued property. Historical fair value (note not under valued) is north of 6%, that price has a long way to come down...and to think it was just over 2% when the property was at £550000. Crazy price levels. Who in the right mind would pay that...well, I guess bubbles never end with any rationale decisions.
  2. I should have googled that, being lazy. Thanks. So oilfield company. That is worrying in light of the fact that this is an industry which is not directly related to Northern Ireland.
  3. The part I have highlighted in bold. Just curious how this is one of the most bizarre contrarian rallys ever seen...and what is the circumstantial evidence from HFT that made this bizarre rally? And also how are you quantifying "strongly suggest" that they are gaming system to extraordinary levels...? I just don't understand this statement. Or at least I don't know how you have arrived at making these statements. Dow Jones after the 1929 crash of 50%, the market, unemployment rising, fundamentals were terrible, banks were going bankrupt, house prices falling...Yet there was many many rallys much larger than the one today which is only just nearing 38%. SO these rally's during the 1930's of 40-50%, how can these be explained? Could these also be described as bizarre contra rallys'?There were no such computer systems doing the trading in those days...I see your statement as complete postulation and mere conjecture. How about the 78% rally 1974-1976? I m no fan of the banks or the likes of GS etc etc, and I agree taxpayers should not be on the line. We would not have been, as all the banks should have been allowed to fail, and liquidated the bad debt. However, I just don't see how daily price is being drastically altered by any of these innovations.
  4. I m not justifying frontrunning...I was responding to the point that there is nothing positive about making money from short term gains My point is that it is negligible on the bigger scale fractions of a penny make. And my point was that you could take any part of any chain in the production line and probably shave a fraction of the price.
  5. I understand your point, and sorry if I came across as being hard or harsh. I would understand this point if it was one short term trade in isolation, however it needs to be noted that this is all part of the price discovery method, as it is the constant balancing between buyers and sellers over long periods which leads to the price. We can say there is shortterm noise, but if you like you smooth the price out with an average and you will see that these price fluctations deviate above and below an average, but generall an average will show (with hindsight) what the aggregate expectations are of that company. As I say these trades are not in isolation, they are strung together with fluidity over long periods of time which leads to a consenus on price... Also you are assuming that the person on the other side is a direct contrarain to the person on the other side of the trade so they must be losing. How about if the person on the other side is taking an investment of the table which he has held for months or years? He might be down 2k, but the fund, company, indivdual could be taking this off the table a few years later at a large profit minus the 2k. If someone is losing 2k in 5 minutes, then it could be assumed the owner ship oif the stock is large, and should not equate to the bottom line too much. Allowing a minumum holding period? Is this fair? As as been moves of 30-40% can happen in days...aka HBOS, or yesterday there were companies that moved 10%...A move of this size must been some new development that will effect the outlook for the company at least in the near term. Is it ethical to make someone sit out a double digit loss on a stock as they have to wait 7 days? Also remember in your example of someone on the other side losing 2k to someone elses gain, well remember the price was accepted by that person. They were not forced to take that price. They entereed into a trade/investment and for whatever reason decided to sell to someone who was willing to buy. There was price agreement. Can we dictate what is exactly the right price for someone to sell at... If someone entered into an investment they should know that prices move, and move alot all the time, at least during trading hours...they cannot expect price to stay static. No one has anyright to assume what is the time preference of any individual on anything. Remember anyone buying a stock is doing it for some benefit, just as you buy any item online or on the highstreet. They have chosen to buy at that price in that moment in time. Can we legislate that they cannot do this, that the price is wrong for them, that they have not the free choice to chose the price based on their own motives? Essential point to remember is this. It is by every investors free choice that they bought into a market or share at some perceived value. No one told them they must do it or they will go to jail. So should it not be their free choice to choose a price to sell? If you take liquidity away, ie, the engine oil (speculators) the people who are willing and able to take the other side, the counter party away from a market, then people wanting to sell will not be able to get the price they want to sell at. As an example here is a OTC stock in the US...Anglo American take a look at this chart...You see the huge gaps in price? Do you see the gap in March from 14-18? The lack of liquidity in that market means that it would be very difficult to get out at the price forecast or level you wanted. And that is a daily chart so the intraday liquidity is non-existent. Now take this example of a stock with lots of buyers and sellers...Barclays This is Barclays chart right now, a 3min candle chart with alive feed from the London Stock Exchange. Do you notice how the price on the right side is fractionalised where you can trade at increments in the 1/4 penny range? The engine oil and greece of the system are speculators, who enable this fine pricing mechanism to play out and take place. Spreads are tight. So at every increment between say 295 to 304, buyers and sellers of their own free choice have the freedom to buy and sell this stock in seconds, milliseconds if you like. Does I care if I miss out on a penny or a fraction of a penny? In the other non liquid, non speculative OTC stock, I would be not able to get the price which is good for one one... If you want to introduce a minimum holding period and make markets illiquid then you will have price gaps where the price is not available with jumps from 302-306 pence without the freedom to choose inbetween. Sometimes it is better the devil you know.
  6. I don't see how you can say this. If everyone took this attitude where would we be. Its also a load of rubbish. A company needs investment, or it needs to form capital to invest in channels of production. So a company gets capital formation, by issuing bonds and shares. The investors (who take the risk) will be rewarded for this risk in the form of growth in the company and hopefully a dividend payment. The price of a company today is not influenced by what has happened but the aggregate hopes and expections of how the company will be in the future. A company will produce a product or a service, which will be consumed or used by people in society. If enough people use the service the company will make a profit and reward investors in the form of an increased share price dividend payment. The company may well take these profits and reinvest them in expansion or new products, thus creating more employment and new products. It is the free choice of the consumer to purchase these products or not. If the company makes a profit then who has the right to say consumers should not buy that product? So without capital formation companies would never get off the ground, or be able to expand. Infact the very computer you are most likely to reply to this on is a product of people investing in the vision of an entrepreneur. How do drugs get produced, through research and development etc etc...If you don't see anything positive in investing then next time you are at the doctors don;t take the prescription... If you have kids, take their ipods and playstations from them or whatever gadgets they have and tell them they have been produced by immoral means...you shouldn't have them. The share price is the barometer or a function of a companies future viability...with this information, what yardstick do we use to allocate capital to enable companies to expand? How do companies get capital without some form of reward for people who risk money they have worked for?
  7. It is a good article, and I would say a good explanation of something which is shrouded in mystery and a subject which the general public are quite ignorant of, apart from some emotionally, politically ladened article they have read in the Daily Mail Business section. Contribution is that they are part of a much larger aggregate of people (all market participants) who are in the price discovery business. Everyone has free choice at what price they buy something, the spreads are extremely tight these days, and for the retail investor/trader he has now access in his own house to what was only available 10-20 years ao to banks and wealthy individuals... Here is how I see crying over a fractions of a few cents or pennies...One can argue you are not getting a fair price, over some very small amount which will have no bearing on 90% of investors who will have much longer time preference than these guys. You go down to your local Tesco and buy your milk, and pay x amount of pence for it. You are assuming that this is the price, which it is of course. Is it not possible that somewhere in this production line, that the company who provides the milk could get everyone to work a little faster each day to make more milk and hence reduce the price by 1pence? Price is a very arbitrary objective, and I would add that in products you buy everyday the price could be changed by very small amounts by making changes in the production chain. This is not the best example, but I m just making the point that you could make the point for anything being a fraction of pennies cheaper than the price you buy.
  8. I didnt come up with it on this thread you total ignoramus, you mentioned it and brought it up showing your complete lack of knowledge on the subject and started making assumptions, not realising that a mining company is named after one of the most famous books/texts that exist...have you heard of the Bible? Or do you need a run down on what that book is? How about Crime and Punishment Yes, these are books also. Next you ll be saying my name is after a writing style on word, opps sorry that is Verdana I lived in India, and have studied the philosophy for about 6 years, nothing to do with Tantra. Hope I have cleared up your confusion and lack of knowledge on anything that could be described as wordly.
  9. I can only presume you mean the mining company Vedanta on the LSE. My name is nothing to do with that. Vedanta originates back a little further...to the Upanaishads, the ancient Indian texts or the Vedas...Vedanta meaning "culmination of knowledge" as pertaining to knowledge beyond the terrestrial world, and also as they were the later books of the Upanishads. The greatest living proponent of Vedanta is A Parthasarathy...Vedanta Treatise with this book which was 50 years in writing.One of the greatest philosophies for living known to man...Vedanta resources is an Indian company I believe, so between 2004-2006 judging by the share price they were living the Vedantic Principles on production, haha.
  10. Ok, I m being pedantic now. However, I don't see how this is irrational even if the moves were that big recently, which they are not. The last 14 days there has been many days of around 1%...and some less. The average range has been 69 over the last 14 days, a 2 percent move would be nearly 90 points. The average daily range has been falling and well below 2%.
  11. Gordon Brown did not resign a few months ago. I think that has been wonderful for the markets, and Mr Brown is the main reason we have entered into a new longterm bull market in stocks. Thank goodness for Brown., haha, of course joking. I don't see any good fundamental reasons to be in equities, for sure it has been a cyclical move up within the large bear. It could go longer, but I m hedging my bets that the market will make its way down from here... The VIX is at the levels of 2007, and using the RSI on the VIX a nice divergence has formed on the weekly chart. This has coincided with the brick wall of resistance in the region 4500-4700. The number of new stocks making new 52 weeks highs is falling from its peak.
  12. Why? This is called volatility. This type of action has been around since markets began. Infact volatility is now as its lowest point since July 2007, just before the "crash" started in earnest. I m preparing for a fall now. What a beautiful line of resistance. Excellent risk/reward at this point.
  13. Why do you make this assumption? Interest rates in the UK in the 1970's went from 5% up to nearly 16% to around 13 by 1985, and the sterling went from over 260 to 1 against the USD... Between 1983 interest rates went from 9% to 1985 to 13% yet in that period the GBP/USD lost 30% of its value... How about the Icelandic Krona, the value of the Krona crashed even though interest rates went up from 13% to near 19%? You are making the assumption that the UK will be raising interest rates in isolation to other countries. Also, if a country defaults on its debt, rising interest rates are rarely good for a currency. What I would ask is which countries will be able to increase rates with least risk of damage to the economy.
  14. Marc Faber just on Thursday I think on CNBC talking about output gap. Very interesting. Faber on output gap and inflation
  15. Hi DD, Essentially what you are saying is correct, gold in and of itself has not much use...but then again that can be said for paper money, sterling, USD, what are they at the end of the day? They are pieces of paper. If you look into how a medium of exchange actuully becomes worth something it is once it becomes accepted as a medium of exchange. It is when society or the peoples who are using that money have faith that it has purchasing power. Once this faith or acceptance takes root, then demand increases for it as a medium of exchange. So it could be said it is mass psychology acting at once which manifests as demand which gives paper money value. When faith is lost in money then its value collapses as demand drops and people spend money as quickly as possible and the velocity of money goes up, which usually leads to very high rates of inflation, perhaps even hyper inflation. Gold is the same in that, it has been used for thousands of years as a medium of exchange throughout empires and in trade. The reason being that it is perceived as having value, and history shows that it has value. Also it is much more durable that paper money, it is easily stored, and can be broke down into very small sizes from a few grams to many ounces to kilos. So yes, gold like any currency does need faith. However as for the reasons mentioned gold supply cannot be manipulated like the supply of paper money can be by governments which is probably why it has stood the test of time as a store of value over many many centuries. I m not saying one should hold all their wealth in gold. However, 10-20% is not a bad idea, depending on circumstances. It is used to preserve purchasing power not necessarily create wealth. A good insurance policy. So we can establish that gold and sterling are both useless objects. However, any experience is the merger of subject and object and from that you get resultant event or experience. Gold is an object, money is an object, it depends on the contact with a subject which gives it value. The subject is people, and it just is that they perceive value in gold. It is not a trend that is likely to reverse, not saying it will not. People will lose faith in paper money before gold. This has been the way its been, and continues to be. Another reason why gold has value is its cultural significance in many countries. It goes much deeper than an investment or a store of value. It is deeply in grained in cultures, particularly Asian cultures. Having lived in Asia I have seen this with my own eyes. Thailand was formerly knows as Siam ( you might recall the Siamese twins, which is where the term orginated from) Siam in Sanskrit actually means gold. It is the same in China, they actually love gold. Sites likes this are everywhere... It is not uncommon to have 10 gold shops all clumped together in one area. Also the shops are usually buzzing with people. Most Thais will try to own some gold, with the very rich owning alot. Also in India, gold is used as a gift during Indian wedding season. The Saudis are big into their gold also. They were some of the first to be buying gold at the start of this bull market 7 years ago. What you might call the smart money. The point about those other elements is a good one. There is no demand for these or precedent for these elements being used as a medium of exchange. You could buy them I m sure, but the reason they are a fraction of the price is that no one demands this or has accepted it as a medium of exhange. Well, I googled tellerium. If only we had been having this conversation in the year 2000, we 'd all be rich, lol. This metal has went from 4 USD to over 100 USD today. A 2500% increase. So, this kind of makes the point that it is its scarcity that gives it value and also it said it is being used in computer equipment alot now which is why the value has increased so much. Interesting, do you want to take on the role of as raw material reseacher for me Doctor Dick ? However, this might be a cyclical thing with this element, where in if demand or the use in computer becomes redudant then it will lose its value again, as it is not seen as a medium of exchange. The other point is that gold is much more liquid. It would be quite difficult to obtain tellerium at a retail level I would imagine and it could be quite hard to find a buyer. Shipbuilder made a point that gold may not hold its value as it once did. Could be right of course. However, if we deal with what is actaully happening now, rather than postulation it can be seen that this gold secular up turn which usually last 14-32 years is still playing out as one would expect, despite the emergence of the internet. In the early stages of a secular up turn gold usually lags other commodities, and in the latter stages it will catch up and surpass other commodities. This seems to be playing out now, if we take a 10 year trend, a 5 year trend a 1 year trend and even a monthly trend. This is as close to "real time" as we can get. Shipbuilder is right in that we have now more access to a broad range of commodities. However, the same is true for gold and silver. There many funds, ETF's and venues dedicated only to gold, single eft's with only gold. There are not too many dedicated to only to sugar, corn, wheat etc etc... The other point is that gold or silver can be much more easily stored than wheat, sugar, corn, oil. Imagine the costs of trying to store oil or uranium in your back garden. How many tonnes of wheat or copper would be needed to make one kilo of gold, which I can easily store in a metal box in the back garden? Also, these other commodities have a limited life span...gold can be held indefinitely over a long number of years. How much easier is it to storre and transport and find a buyer for that other commodities? It also assumes that all commodities will peak in price at the same time which is not the case. Gold is much stronger than other commodities in the last phase of a commodity bull market. Sugar for example stored peaked a few years before old, same with coffee and cocoa and wheat. The individual supply and demand for each commodity will be stronger or weaker at different times in a bull market, meaning that for a few years the price of gold could be much higher than the others. Shipbuilder is right of course that it is good to own a selection of all these commodities. You will find that people who own gold will own the others anyway and vice versa. I do also think there are better commodities to own than gold, silver and sugar are historically much cheaper. If one expects this to be the end of the gold bull market, then I ll postulate that interest rates have hit a permanent low and will not rise again. Is this a rational assumption? I dont think so.There is a bubble in government bonds, Treasury yields are extremely low as are Gilt yields, gold bull markets end with interest rates in the double digits, not at historic lows. As the bubble in US treasuries will burst one day like every bubble one has to ask what are the ramifications of this event for the price of gold. For instance US 10 year Treasury note yeilds at the beginning of the last gold bull market were under 4%, in 1966 by the end of the bull market in gold and the bear market in treasuries treasury yields were 17% and gold had went from 35 USD in 1966 to 850 USD in 1981/82
  16. If a ship sinks to the bottom of the sea, with 3 million USD of paper money, or 50 kilos of gold, which one would be worth visiting the ship wreck to retrieve? One reason is that it is durable and has been around as a medium of exchange for 3000 years... Look at the lifespan of any fait currency, or paper currency if you like. The Assignats in France between 1790-1792 lost all of their value due to hyperinflation...its gone long ago. How about the old Contienental USD during the American Revolution of 1775? It is worthless and no more. How about the Weimar mark in Germany in the 1920's... History is replete with examples of a paper currency being devalued and destroyed by the government policy. Money is an indirect medium of exchange and evolved from the inflexibility of the old barter system. Gold is still seen and used as a currency. Many people use gold as a currency, just as we use sterling to buy good in shops. You might ask but gold is not accepted in shops here, or by the bank to buy a house? This is true. Like money it is an indirect medium of exchange. Similarly your labour and work is not accepted as a medium of exchange, that is why your employer whether that is yourself or a company will exchange that labour, work and production into Pounds...which you will then convert into food, fuel, housing, leisure and a whole host of other activities... In the same way of thinking, gold is very liquid and can easily be converted into sterling, gold is the same as labour if you like in this example. Labour is not money, but it has value, gold is not sterling, but it has value relative to sterling, and sterling is the indirect medium of exchange in the UK. It is said that in a deflationary environment it is best to be cash as cash increases in value or assets fall,the same thing actually. However, if gold has been used as money for thousands of years, then it stands to sense that gold is a cash equivalent. Gold has come into its true role as a medium of exchange in this deflationary environment. It has held its value. Gold today will buy you more Canadian Dollars that 1 years ago, more Sterling than 1 year ago, much more property than sterling will, much more oil than 1 year ago, much more wheat than 1 year ago, much more corn that a year ago, much more milk, much more insurance, many more Euros, many more AUD, many more NZD, many more Icelandic kroner...etc etc... At the peak of the boom in Northern Ireland house prices would you have rather owned gold or sterling? What price would a house be today in gold terms and in sterling terms. House prices have fallen much much more in terms of gold that sterling... So far from being a useless metal, it has been extremely valuable in maintaining intrinsic wealth and purchasing power. The 50% plus falls in houses prices everyone is looking for has been more than achieved if using gold as a medium of exchange. You might not be able to build a house with gold, but then again, you can't build a house with food, yet is food useful? You can certainly buy a house with gold, and more house than sterling will buy. Why does it maintain value? Well, the average yearly new supply of gold is about 2400 tonnes. It is the very scarcity of gold that gives it value. It comes back to supply and demand, and the relatives between these two fundamental pricing mechanisms. On the other hand, paper money can be created in limitless amounts, The Bank of England can issue £150 billion of Gilts in the click of a mouse. Paper money has been losing its value against real assets for decades and centuries, and will continue until one day it becomes worthless. The supply of gold can not created by the click of a mouse. It is limited. Paper money is not. So the more money chasing less of any product will lose value relative to that product. In a nutshell this is why gold is useful. Of course there is times when it is better to own gold than other times. However, if you look at these cycles and if you look over the longrun, it can be seen that gold has always maintained its value. The price of oil in gold terms today is pretty constant with 30 years ago...Can the same be said for sterling? Or any currency for that matter? Money in itself is a commodity and the cost dictated according to the supply of it and the demand for it by society. The cost of money, ie, the interest rate should be determined like this. Central bankers however have totally distorted what the true cost of money should be today by trying to gauge the rate of interest on money, which is deeply flawed. Take a look at this chart This is a chart of the USD purchasing power over 200 years. I marked the black line as this was when the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. The USD has lost 95% of its value. Under the gold standard, in the period between 1800 to 1900 the purchasing power of the USD fluctated but always came back to the mean. This is stable prices. Now the story is totally different...It is clear that trying to centrally plan the cost of money has been a complete failure. No one has that wisdom to know the collective and aggregate time preferences of every individual in society for money. How can 14 government buereuacrats know this for everyone? They cannot. No one can. The Federal reserve has failed twice before and the third one created in 1913 will also fail, probably due to some uprising or revolution as the USD will lose perhaps all its value in the coming decades. These things take time. History shows that, and right now today shows that it is wise in periods like this to own some gold.
  17. Anything is possible in Thailand if you have the money. There are ways round these things. You can own a condo, apartment in Thailand easily enough. Owning land is more difficult, but can be done with sufficient funding, circa 40 million baht through the BOI, Board of Investment, Thailand, an example would be owning an approved business which would allow you one to buy up to 1 rai of land to build a house and also own the land the business is built on. Lonterm leases are also a way to own land for between 30-60 years. For me buying a condo is the best way to go as if there I d be situated in Bangkok. The alternative is just to rent which is a sound enough way with much more flexibility.
  18. Just in there from a mates birthday party, so I ll have to respond at another point. However, thanks for the time to respond and raising your points, which are all relevant. It is good to have a board where there are so many good posters who can have these rational debates about issues which are important and interesting at the same time. I m not saying I m right as that would be a ridiculous thing to think, just putting up my views and food for debate. I m writing something for a blog which has been knawing away at my brain for a few weeks now. I ll post it when I have done it as it is related to this subject. I think the one theme we all have in common is that we have lofty ideals which are certainly tinged with a positive outlook, and underneath that we all want a better society. Whether or not w'll all agree on the means is a different thing I mean is it ridiculous to think that the fireservice could be privatised? Roads? We can come back to this again, its too late for me now, haha... And agree that big business such as Tesco do stifle competition, I would say we agree that it is a combination of big business and government which enables this. I don't think this is a failure of a free market as we don't have one. I heard someone say last week that it is not a failure of free markets, this has been Corporatism+Big Government imposing the rules, some might say that comes under Fascism. Headmelter, you are quite right. I m sure that is not very nice to read that, as I m sure there are a great many doing their best to do the best job they can, and yes I was taking one big brush stroke in generalising that fact. However a few instances have made me come to this conclusion. A doctor on call who sent my mother home telling her to stay in bed as she had vertigo and it would go away. My mother had said that she had a numbness down her left side and her speech was alittle off, and that morning when she felt like that, a stroke had crossed my mind and my fathers. My father suggested that to this doctor that Sunday morning and he was alittle arrogant and said no it was definitely vertigo and ordered no further tests. As it turned it didnt go away, and when she had the MRI it confirmed that she had a stroke, 5 months later. Over in England, my uncle died and the hopsital admitted gross neglience. I ll not go into the details, but it was really horrific stuff. I have heard lots of people complain about doctors more so in recent years, and some just don't seem to be up to it or do not take due care and attention to detail. Again, I know there many doing a great job under difficult conditions, but I have been in one of the top hospitals in the world before and I can see how good a hospital can be. Luckily I was not in for anything serious, just some tests which were all completed very quickly. Within about 3 hours. The cost was £170. The same tests here on the NHS took one year with waiting times.
  19. For sure we need to look at the big picture. I really have disdain for the Daily Mail. However, I don't think it is true to label someone a Daily Mail reader due to the fact that they don't want to pay super high taxes which will increase over time to pay for the unproductive. I don't even agree with paying taxes, or at least taxes should be much much lower. The problem I have with taxation is that it is coercive, one does not have a choice, you will go to prison if you don't. What galls me is that some government beaurocrat who I may not have even voted for is able to "tell me" how he/she can spend the money I earned more effectively than me. At an individual level, that is like someone you know, but not very well, taking your money that you earned and spending it on himself and family. Taxation does not create wealth or lead to production, or does it allocate capital in the way a entrepreneur can. Taxation moves money from the producers to the inactive. For sure we are awarded with public services, however I have now had two damaged tyres on my car in the last 2 years due to potholes in country roads in NI. The roads are atrocious. The health service is a sham, the quality of care ands the attention to detail of the doctors is not great at all. Waiting lists are ridiculous. If I or anyone wanted to organise their own private health care insurance, we don't get the option of tax relief. I know a family friend well, who works in the Housing Executive in a good position. He said 2 weeks ago when I was speaking with him that fraud is rife in the system. Someone I know of, was telling me, a girl had a child recently. Aged 18. She has been given a house, TV, microwave, DVD player, money each week to stay in this house. The father aged 18 from what I hear drinks alot and doesn't work, but stay in the house.. The family are all benefit seekers. Now this house is being subsidised by us. I don't want to pay for what is likely hundreds of cases like this. Why should that person get a house? She got drunk, got pregnant. I didnt ask her to get drunk. That was her choice. Her family should pay, or if not her family the father. Its is this kind of moral hazard that government welfare creates. Why would people take responsibility for their actions when they have the government under writing them. This sort of indiscriminate social benefits is similar to the banks on a micro scale. The government intervention and not allowing bad companis to fail meant they would become ever more reckless. The "GreenSpan Put" as it was known as. Why would banks need to be prudent when they are under written by the taxpayer? The same questions go for individuals. I m not morally judging someone going out drinking and getting pregnant. I am all for people having freedom, and making their own choices. People should be allowed to make thier own decisions about drinking, sexual relationships, drugs, but the downsides are that people also have to have the freedom to face any consequence of their own actions without coming to a stranger to ask for money. Charity needs to be voluntary. It only creates dependence. In Japan welfare is received by only 0.7% of the population, and welfare is limited at that. They have a much stronger family unit, a more productive society, better infrastructure, good hospitals and very low rates of crime. It is my thought that government stifles competition and makes starting any sort of enterprise expensive. Over regulation, taxations, start up costs makes it very difficult for an individual to start a business. Legals costs alone to make sure that you sticking to the government imposed regulations are ridiculous. Governments create monopolies with the over regulation. They are able to afford the high costs to be compliant, to afford the lawyers that will find loopholes in the law. The person trying to enter into a new market will find it very difficult indeed. If I make great Irish Stew or wonderful curry, and I wanted to set up a stall outside my house. I could not do that. I would need to go to the council which will be payin someone through tax, apply for a traders consent license at £3000 a year,get public liability insurance, register with the food safety people, register my business, etc etc...I dont understand why we need all these regulations. Again it is an example of government thinking they know what people should eat, what is safe and what is not. Why can the individual person not decide for themselves? I mean if I food poison someone in a local area, that is the end of my business. Word would get around, and I would not succeed. However if I made great food, and people from all around the local area picked up their food on the way past, and people loved it, why do I need some government body telling and charging me for what is an arrangment or contract between my customers and me. Let people choose. This is only an example by the way. I m working on it that within two years I hope to pay no taxes or very few at most. And I won't use the system in anyway. I ll use my own private medical care, my own pension I wont be asking for dole money in the event I ever needed to and I will donate to whatever charities I want to, ie, people who I feel genuinely could make a great effort, people who want to help themselves, and people in real need.
  20. Or we could go for 10*60 floors, oasis compound Dubai style...
  21. Watched this earlier. I like this guy. Good watching.
  22. Classic, so that is how you spell that word...I couldnt find the correct spelling in the dictionary
  23. Now thats a good point. I havent been really following the progress of these buyers, but I wonder how many can get a mortgage now? Surely banks will not lend 200-300 K for an asset which (is) will be worth less than 50% of the contract price.
×
×
  • 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.