Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

LandOfConfusion

Members
  • Posts

    401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LandOfConfusion

  • Rank
    Newbie
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    Shite East (SE)
  • About Me
    "When I was young I was poor. But after decades of hard work, I’m no longer young." - Bob Golen

Recent Profile Visitors

3,796 profile views
  1. Volumes definitely seem to be up slightly but prices? I'd agree with the article in that they've stagnated and there is a lot of tat(*) coming to market. That said it still impresses me though how people can 'find' the money; £17k was the last I heard mentioned and that was from a young couple who were supposedly already at their limit. Then again those Barclays adverts with the almost teenage-looking 26 year old with the slightly midlands accent, a bafflingly well paid £2.3k+/month (net) job as an operations manager and who spends £500/mth on clothes and £200/mth on takeaways suggests I'm very much out of touch. * I had a house emailed to me recently which looked like it might actually be a genuine fall. Highlights included the boiler mounted upstairs at the front of the bath just above the taps, a very much wood & brown kitchen and a 'conservatory' which looked like it had been put together over the weekend by someone's dad. And those electrics... But no, turns out the price was because of the concrete construction which externally was conveniently hidden by some very thick looking paint. Generally when the debt burden becomes so great that no new money enters the system, growth and therefore rate of inflation falls. The solution is to cut IR's so that the effective debt burden is less and the party can continue. But there are three issues with this approach: 1. Lower IR's tend to devalue your currency, which can be bad in the long run if you rely on imports. 2. You haven't actually fixed the problem of the excess debt without also growing the supply, which is what brought you to this position in the first place, and 3. There is a limit to how low IR's can go, at which point if you haven't solved #2 above then you're back to square one but now without the ability to cut rates further. Just leaving he system alone would of course lead to a recession but would also cause the debt to be written off and supply & demand to rebalance naturally. Politically though you're going to want to be at least seen to be doing something so perhaps some marginal rate rises coupled with a lot of noise about 'external factors' is the way to go? Because the current bout of inflation appears to be mostly Covid related and therefore likely to subside in the short-medium term. The bigger issue is that of people approaching the limits of how much debt they can continue to take on, which has been brought forward by the recent rises.
  2. Rarely, yes. I'm not aware of a comparable scenario like this. Food production will be hit for at last the next 2 years. But if we can sustain that (and it looks like we can) then it'll be a deflating force after that. Putin is supposedly not in a good condition health-wise but even ignoring that, during war you need the populace to support what you're doing and I can see that falling apart before long. And of course the assumption here is that our current inflation problems are due to the invasion. I'd suggest they are to a degree but also that there are more important factors, mainly around post-Covid which is driving the current bout.
  3. Just been reading this thread and well, I might as well give my "2¢". Looks to me like the war in Ukraine will abate later this year / early next. This will help cause inflation to fall back as will declining UK productivity / economic activity. Provided people can sustain the hit before that happens then there will be no HPC within that timeframe. I expect IR's to once again fall as a result and house prices to resume their upward march, albeit at a slower rate than previously. I expect supply imbalances from Covid to more or less subside within the net 2 years, further reducing inflationary pressures and further adding support for IR cuts. I expect household debt to continue to grow and become more of a problem, eventually leading to an exhaustion of available capacity and then a HPC. I expect perhaps 2-4 years of further HP rises before then. ----- On the other hand this could all go to hell if the war drags on and inflation doesn't subside. Government debt is already very high and double-digit inflation does little to help outside of eroding the debt. We could conceivably find ourselves in a situation where confidence in the BoE to contain inflation starts to evaporate whilst the government can no longer afford to continue running up debts. With a lot of home owning, mortgage free pensioners who are none the less reliant on the inflation protection part of the triple-lock as well as all those on benefits et al this scenario wouldn't be petty. The 'fix' would be to either allow a natural burnout Irish famine style or raise rates like back in the late 70's. I still think it's the first scenario though.
  4. I finally had a reply yesterday! It appears to be a modified canned answer but basically: "Nothing has been agreed yet". A free trade agreement with India would make us all rich (I'm paraphrasing of course 😉). It will "benefit" all regions. Additional GDP boost from more people paying wages. There will be a salary ceiling floor which they currently intend to be adjustable. "Negotiations between the UK and India remain ongoing" Interestingly there is no mention of how low this roof floor will be, although I've seen one media report of circa. £23k-£24k for the best candidates being suggested. I think I'll probably follow up the email once more details become apparent, as you just know this has "Titanic" badly scribbled out underneath.
  5. To paraphrase from another forum: "Most Indians are terrible but there are exceptions, and they don't handle those well either!" I've come across a few who were reasonable although like you suggest not so good at UI development or understanding/dealing with users. That said I've come across significantly more who have some strange ideas and not just about coding. A few years ago I was on a course with one and he just decided to take a few months off to visit family in India. All we knew was he was in one day and gone the next, so assumed reality had finally caught up with him. 4 months later and he shows up expecting to continue as if nothing had happened. But back on topic it's been a week now and my MP hasn't replied, not even an acknowledgement. And looking at her voting history I'm not surprised, it's pretty clear she's quite fond of Boris and has that classic Tory dislike of plebeians democracy.
  6. He did say he was going to "reward" Northern voters who voted for him so perhaps now we now know how. High house prices for everyone! I guess this also means we'd better stock up on those 2 bed flats 6-bed HMO's; I'm sure the new occupants will feel right at home.
  7. The Moskva PM's premiership has taken a few hits recently, so it looks like all that is left is for him to do now is strip this country and then bail whilst it all goes down.
  8. https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/uk-pm-boris-johnson-favours-more-skilled-visas-for-indians-report-2907739
  9. I though it was the right that was supposed to be obsessed with "immigrunts" as you put it. Talking about simpleton statements don't you think it ironic how you've managed to take a mildly complex scenario, strip out some bits you presumably don't understand and then form a conclusion based on what's left? Next thing you'll be telling me how great the EU (not EFTA) is. 🤣🤡 No I would suggest that massive inflows of largely EU money might have been more important in making land prices in Poland more expensive, even though they lost a good chunk of their population but then that might go against your narrative, so I won't. 😉
  10. Oh right. Does this mean they're going to ban BTL? Or is it Tory homeownerism once again?
  11. No, non-sequitur is when you make a claim which does not follow from the premise. I'd say that God exist for those people but for everyone else only the religion exists. It's a false analogy or more specifically a black & white fallacy as you're asserting that something could only be regarded to exist if it has a corporeal nature, and that isn't necessarily true. Concepts and ideas are regarded as having substance if they can have effect and so as long as people treat them as real they in effect are. Like abide by contracts? Absolutely; for a fiction to be 'real' it must be instantiated. But once that happens it has material effect and can be treated as such. Yes if they're passable. And doing so harms society so #7 applies. But in general they're not. There exists a common set of abstract attributes which when instantiated together constitute a society. I was once told that there are no "illegal people". Well I'd suggest you can operate as an outlaw and if you do so within the area claimed by a group of people who as a collective satisfy the definition of being a society then that group can and will impose it's rules and values on you. And of course you'd be free to vacate should you not be willing to accept that. I am curious now though; if I own a house and set the rules does that make me a slave owner wrt family and visitors? And isn't the very fact that I 'own' the house an abstract idea and therefore meaningless as per your argument? A slave can't leave, have a say in who his leader is or have a say in where the fruits of his productivity goes. To suggest otherwise would be a non sequitur. I've already outlined the parameters for what constitutes a society and you have done an acceptable job in defining what a business is. What appears to be the problem is that you don't seem to be able to accept that abstract ideas can be treated as if they were corporeal. It doesn't matter if they are tangible, all that matters is that they have effect. I think you might need to define "voluntary". But anyway imagine I put a gun to your head, threaten your family or otherwise impose on you two or more options, none of which are good but where the one in which I benefit is the least bad, is that "voluntary"? How about if I create any other situation where I create any other win-lose situation, even if doing so breaks a prior agreement? I've heard the argument that monopolies which engage in anticompetitive practices and kill off competition are perfectly acceptable, because you still have a choice. And in an anarchist / no society environment I'd agree with you but if people come together under the parameters of society I've listed above then no, it's not. The existence of a society implies a social contract borne out of mutual benefit, and as you point out if that didn't work then people would leave. But then should people who have a stake in something, in this case society be forced to accept breaches of that implied contract? Or do you consider that because contracts are abstract and meaningless by themselves it doesn't matter?
  12. That's a very interesting response and you seem to have captured what I mean. Thank you. Religion & therefore God is a false analogy although to some degree you are otherwise right with the rest of your comment. I'd suggest a mental concept with a concrete implementation is effectively real and that is why for instance fiat money holds value. You're right, that wasn't very good. How about "a society is a membership consisting of some common values and ideals coupled with key shared interests and existing for the mutual benefit"? I'd suggest hives are not societies. And neither are groups of people herded together against their will. Well in that situation you either you have a hive, an encapsulated society or a population of slaves. This doesn't change society's view of or relationship to business. Society sees businesses as a provider of goods and/or services; how it is internally structured or why doesn't really matter. That's the problem for business to resolve. These are the three things I thought you'd have a special issue with, especially given their importance to BTL. OK, please explain to me if I'm wrong but from your perspective people come together or if you prefer form a fictitious entity in order to be to be exploited and/or abused? Or they form such a (real/fake) entity but are happy for this to happen as a condition or consequence of membership?
  13. A lot of people seem to have issues with the idea of value creation, business & society. Put simply does the business create something of value which is at least equal to what it takes in return? Is the business simply repackaging value that was there already; is the net balance of the transaction a negative for society? To give an example there have been cases where a product has been created and profits generated but there was a net loss to society. The businesses involved had generated often toxic waste but left the clean up to the society in which they operated. If the cost of clean up had been built into the price of the product then there would have been no problem although it's possible that the enterprise wouldn't be profitable, and that should be acceptable. It shouldn't be that society effectively subsidises a private enterprise; society shouldn't exist to serve the interest of business.
  14. 1 & 2: Failure to implement tend to be common core problems, but it's the theory I'm interested in right now. 3: You could argue that in theory everyone has the same potential to cheap access to housing, although practice might be different. I should probably also add something about providing a basic safety net to citizens but with caveats to prevent abuse. 6: (The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members) means that businesses cannot simply sponge; they must create or provide reciprocal value. It's not society's job to make their business work. 9: Absolutely. In theory society's job is to prevent external agents including business from inflicting harm either to the society itself or it's members. Of course practice is often different and you could probably split hairs all day with corner cases, e.g. alcohol although #2 might except that if personal freedoms are a common goal.
  15. I had a conversation about BTL a couple of years ago with an Australian "Libertarian". It was one of those rare times when you realise you don't actually have the complete picture and he made me realise that what I had assumed to be obvious common ground was not so common after all. And I'm seeing evidence of this in your reply. So tell me where you think I'm wrong, if at all: Society exists. Society is like a union of members (citizens) working towards common goals. A fundamental pillar of society is that it treats everyone equally but with the possible exception of those who manage society who may hold temporary 'higher' privilege(s) but only and exclusively to enable them to do their society-serving job. Businesses are not citizens. The role of business is to serve society and/or it's individual members. A key role of society involves protecting both itself and it's members from abuses committed by businesses. Society's job is not to provide a safety net to nor serve or be subordinate to business. Where a conflict of interest arises between those of business and those of society it is society's job to favour itself. ?
×
×
  • 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.