LandOfConfusion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/uk-pm-boris-johnson-favours-more-skilled-visas-for-indians-report-2907739

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. 😉

Oh right. Does this mean they're going to ban BTL? Or is it Tory homeownerism once again?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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. ?

There was a case I read about where a family 'off the boat' from France was handed over to UK Immigration. The father was subsequently put up in a flat whilst the wife + kids were put up in a 3-bed house miles away. They eventually found out where each other lived though Facebook (IIRC) and now live in the house as a family. The story stated they were still waiting for the outcome their appeal(s), which had been running for the last 6 years. So only 10 being removed doesn't surprise me.

Absolutely although with the possible exception of Wales, where I'm told they tend to stick out like a sore thumb (I have relatives there). This keeps on being suggested even though it wouldn't fix the problem. In fact I saw a BBC interview this morning where they interviewed a few of the migrants in one of the camps. They had various reasons for wanting to come to the UK but the three common ones were, in no particular order: - They speak English there. - I have (non-direct, often distant) relatives who tell me it's like living in an cultural enclave. No British, just our nationals. - The benefits available to and the treatment of migrants are better there than in France. It reminded me of that Ch4 interview a few years back. Most migrants interviewed suddenly lost the ability to speak English when words like 'benefits' were mentioned but one young West African man was really quite open. "In Britain you get house, money. In France you get nothing". Setting up asylum gateways will do nothing for people like those above, who will still try to come here for the reasons both you and the aforementioned African man mention. And it might even increase the flow once they realise there's another opportunity to roll the dice, and perhaps with even greater chances of success.

I haven't read the whole paper yet (I'm about to go out soon, so admittedly could be completely wrong) but Legal requirements for letting safe, liveable homes. In my experience this already happens in almost all cases. Landlords are generally 'in it for the money' so rentals tend to be basic very anyway. And as the the Landlords themselves, on the whole... But this is already happening on a fairly routine basis without rent controls being in place. I know it's probably been said many times before but the problem is supply inelasticity. If you throw in increasing demand + ever easier access to debt the result is a society which is fleeced by private 'lords of the land'. And if you're not going to socialise rentals as a solution then you need an alternative if you don't want to live in a society largely made up of serfs or economic cuckolds.

There are of course no natural 'rights', only those granted by society. And by and large the right to basic human functionality is a part of most societies. I'm not so sure about puppies though; should we allow people who take on additional responsibilities outside of those basics have extra rights to allow them to discharge those responsibilities? And if so based on what criteria? This shocked me when I heard about it. I had noticed, being fairly close to London, that there seemed to be more than a few ex-Americans around and apparently people leaving for tax reasons is so bad they've actually raised the price of resigning citizenship. It's something like $2500 + a one-off wealth tax + a waiting list(!). That said, their national taxes start at 1¢ (i.e. there is no tax free allowance) and although expats can offset foreign taxes against that it still usually means they end up paying more tax than equivalent earning locals. One of my reasons for giving up watching BBC breakfast was the interview they had with a charity which gave poor families free paid holidays. It seems some people think this should be part of the benefits system as after all, working people generally get to have them so why not those living off the dole?

They didn't actually call him a climate change "denier" but rather posed some sort of presumably weak association with that group. I would suggest that's no more a "technicality" than being found innocent a "technicality".

Although the headline is slightly sensationalist it's an interesting watch nonetheless.

After an initial dip it does look like prices are back around here albeit off the back of very limited stock. I'm guessing this means the impact of inflation hasn't yet been felt and energy costs in particular are going to be a killer for many.

There was a Futurama episode where they describe our universities as something along the lines of adult day care, and I'm starting to think the writers were strangely prescient.

Soldering wasn't part of the course but cutting CAT5 & crimping RJ45 plugs was. Actually that reminds me, even though written step-by-step descriptions of how to do it were handed out several students had difficulty. I saw plugs dangling on long untwisted pairs whilst the outer sheath, which should be crimped inside the plug, was roughly 10cm back. Bear in mind these people were on a degree course(!). God help them if having to wire your own electrical sockets was still a thing.

Nottingham seems to be pretty good, but that said I'm judging them from afar. Otherwise the skills and knowledge you need to operate effectively just aren't taught, or at least that was my experience as someone going to Uni after first working in industry. That was a jaw-meets-table experience I have to say. And I think I've already mentioned the PhD who couldn't explain why a RS232 cable was not considered a network cable (for those that don't know, it's not specified nor intended as one in the RS232 standard even though you can sort of use it like that). To be fair though not all the tutors were as incapable and two in particular were clearly working at the wrong Uni but most of the others and the admin staff in particular shouldn't have been hired in the first place. Sounds about right, she probably got a good grade from them too. I think part of the problem is each university is it's own exam board and there doesn't seem to be much if any external oversight.

I went to Greenwich (Computing) and agree with your sentiment 100%. In year 2 there were students who at college would have either left or been forced out long before they made it that far and yet were still there. And as for the standard of 'teaching', as an example I never in my wildest dreams thought I'd meet a University CompSci tutor who couldn't install a Linux distribution - any Linux distribution - on commodity hardware. I'm actually not sure what was more disturbing, that he couldn't manage it or that he was happy to tell us all about it.