Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


New Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thod

  1. As I recall you should answer "I am John of the family Smith", not "I am John Smith". The later corresponds with the birth certificate and you are saying "I am the owner of the John Smith corporation"
  2. Why bother. Just live on income support. The same as before retirement age because many people are out of work at 50 and won't ever work again. You get all the degrees, work a bit earning big bucks, become obsolete, then are made redundant.
  3. The objective of the gold bug is not to profit from his gold but preserve what he has. I own my house. I own the acreage around it too. So where should I put mu surplus funds? I could buy another house and rent it to someone less fortunate. I could invest in equities and profit from other men's labor. Gold ownership makes no demands of other men and is thus moral. It is simply a form of cash. One that does suffer from fiat inflation through printing.
  4. A friend of mine went to look at a place the other day near our village. Small 2 bed place but with outbuildings set in couple of acres. Habitable. They are asking £20k. This is just across the water. The handicap is in the UK not in France.
  5. This position was brought about by the sea. All the other European countries are obliged to maintain large armies in order to maintain their borders. By contrast Britain could ignore its army and put it's resources in a navy to assure it's borders. No country can spend on army and navy at the same time. However a united Europe reduces the need for army expenditure and allows for a bigger navy than Britain could support. This position changed with the advent of air power. Surface ships are sitting ducks and thus Britain no longer has military reasons. It seems quite reasonable for both these
  6. You can mix labour with a thing? Are they not of two very different qualities such that they cannot mix. Like, if you create a ball, you are not mixing 'roundness' with the leather. I guess words had different semantics back in his day.
  7. Not at all. It is a distinct drag on the software development industry. You see the big boys exchanging portfolios of hundreds of thousands of patents, all using ambiguous language. §I have seen many patents on things I have been doing for years. I certainly don't have time to go read through a patent database every time I put a button up just in case rounded green square buttons are patented.
  8. The 'scrounger' theme never gets old. Get the middle classes to fight the lower classes. A decoy whilst the rich take the wealth from both.
  9. Which is about £1200 for each of us, or rather from each of us. Do this and the country will enter a new renascence of innovation and productivity. It's an easy sell. When it doesn't happen, they say "tough, we got the money now" and come up with a new daydream. The last time around they pulled out Cliff Richard arguing that he should receive money for work he did 50 years ago. No mention of nobody else still gets money for work long done. It seems to me that he produced his work according to the terms then in place. Thus he cannot argue that he would not have produced them otherwise. That co
  10. So you want a name change? We could collect the same amount of money through a business operating licence. After all, if you wish to operate in our country, it is only fair that you pay us for its use. The licence fee is 50% of your profits. No force there, a contract has been offered. You can't go around doing what you like with other peoples property such as starting businesses in them It is interesting that you group coercion along with violence. We are pretty much obliged to pay the energy companies price raises. I do no see much choice there. I would say most economic activity is based o
  11. And then there was no new land to conquer and resource contention returned. Vikings and English plantations imposed on a defenceless people. We tell different stories. Yours is one of the heroic entrepreneur overcoming obstacles to emerge the richest. A sort of gladiatorial contest. Yet gladiators always lost against organized armies because they are trained to fight as individuals rather than as a team. I suggest that at any given time property distribution is a function of force, cunning and luck in the past. That instead of your gladiatorial contest, an equilibrium is reached where t
  12. What delusion is this? Where large states did not exist, tribal power structures did. This is the order I talk about, even if the form was different. They had no compunctions about using violence. Anarchistic populations cannot withstand the pressure of organised populations. I do grow all sorts of things. Suffice to say what takes me all day to dig takes the farmer 5 minutes. Food production too is lost to those with the capital to automate. So the market is 1000 widgets and I have a factory with a capacity of 1100. If you build a replica, you win half the market and we both lose money.
  13. Such as Somalia or Afghanistan? Hereditary monarchy gives a clear line of succession. Without it the contenders fight over who shall be king. Order is the very core of government. The form does not matter, the order does. Unless the other party accepts his labor in trade, he will still have nothing to trade in the future either. Which is invariably the case. You could open a village shop, but there is already one there thus ensuring you would make a loss. The very existence of that other shop is blocking you from making a living in the same way. Those who occupy the income generating uni
  14. You count the employees PAYE and NI as your own? When dodgy employers fail to pay it, the revenue comes after the worker for it. You are simply handing it over for them. By this argument, employees have zero tax and employers pay it all.
  15. Which is an argument for the state since this produces less violence. All most people have to sell is their labor. If the other party will not accept that, there can be no trade and violence will then ensue. The man who has nothing can lose nothing.
  16. I suspect you are thinking in terms of a linear processor dealing with everything. Instead each component has its own processing. This will perform its own functions and only signal a more general purpose AI to deal with out of bounds problems. This will in turn signal up its own problems. The executive, the highest level, job is to decide which signals to focus on. Thus you are walking along the street and an unconscious facial recognition subsystem spots someone you know. It signals very strongly to the executive, your concious mind, which then takes action by signalling motor functions.
  17. Suppose they did not. You still could not compete with third world wages. You see it on Dragons Den. The first thing they ask is "can it be copied". Thus the British people can be inventive and come up with new products, but they will put out of business by an imitator. There was a time when you could think "I will be a shopkeeper" or "I will be a blacksmith". Craft industries are gone. There are the big boys and the hangers on (small businesses). Most people are employees or unemployed.
  18. Trade imbalances are well reported and easily targeted. Capital should not be flowing out. If we import a shipload of Chinese training shoes, we must pay for it with a shipload of British raincoats. We had this situation with the opium wars. China had tea and would only accept silver. Britain had no silver to send, so rather than go without their tea they sent opium. The usual fault in these arguments is to mix micro and macro economics. The actors are the UK and the others. If we import, we must send something the other way. If we produce it ourselves, no matter how high the wage, it is free
  19. That's a good thing. Let those who have no fossil fuels pay the cost of developing the tech. By the tile Britain needs it, it will be dirt cheap.
  20. It's great for families. Lots of benefits for almost no tax. Sucks for single people who cannot divide their income between a wife and two kids. Generous is not the word for it, wasteful is. Those families are quite capable of buying their kids pencils and protractors, they do not need grants for everything. It is pork barrel spending.
  21. If I marry all the prettiest women in the land, do I deprive you of anything? Nope, because you are an ugly bloke and never would have stood a chance with them anyhow.
  22. Oh dear, he has set himself up for a fall. This is no longer about money, it is about sovereignty. Who shall be the master and who the servant. This man thinks himself a master of nations. China had the right idea, play hard ball. Either you do it our way or we pull your operating licence. Telling the US and UK to go f*** yourself was not a smart move. The big shareholders are also big shareholders of other corporates, they are part of the system. They don't like loose canons like this man, they will be looking to appease the authorities.
  23. I read the news today, oh boy / 4,000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire / And though the holes were rather small / They had to count them all /
  24. They kill those first. They do not want entrepreneurs stealing business from the large corporations they control. The moment you set up, you become liable for all sorts of charges. Even if you don't make a penny in profit they ask you for cash.
  25. And capitalism works right up to the point they have no more money to take.
  • 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.