Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pppeter

  • Rank
  1. I'm glad you saw the humour in the first bit, because to be honest you're a bit of a moron and you might have seized on the opportunity for insult and uneducated ranting. It's people like you that made me leave the site for better pastures. I just came back to see how bad it had got! Anyway, moving on to your insults and uneducated ranting... How much have you looked at the charts? In the last 2 crashes the bottom was below the previous 2 peaks in real terms, which would mean going below £110,000 in today's money if it follows through this time. The economy isn't looking like it will do anything different so far. Price/Income ratios for FTBs are still above the last peak and to get a decent fixed rate you need at least a 25% deposit. Low interest rates are the only thing bulls have to cling to, but low interest rates have only 1 way to go. Did you notice in the US last week when rates went up in an hour by an amount which was the equivalent of a 15% reduction in home values? To say that won't happen here is like saying the London market won't crash. You're getting ripped off on rents. The point you and Osborne don't get is that even if prices go up they're unlikely ever to regain their relationship with average earnings and UK average earnings are unlikely to buy the same standard of living in the future. You're spending good money on a UK property which in 25 years' time could be worth what a Polish property is today, in terms of the quality of life you could get by downsizing or whatever you want to do. An alternative use for your money would be to buy into Indian standards of living whilst they're still relatively low, because they won't be soon. If you can't beat the bulls by renting then beat them by buying only as much property as you need. If you'll need an extra bedroom sometime in the future then don't buy it today - use the money wisely. Property always goes up, they say...in the long run. Yes, but so does bread. Which will move faster?
  2. There are characteristics of price changes common to all the assets you mention but in such a manner as to suggest you don't know what you're talking about. There are also differences, such as whether the asset is generally bought with cash or debt. Then you make the "small island" argument. D'oh! How to beat the bulls: 1) Sell your house really cheaply 2) Show them the charts so they convert 3) Rent and invest what would be your mortgage payments in an economy where living standards are likely to increase. Then use your vast wealth to buy a bull's house when he downsizes for retirement, and tell him it's just a little something for your cats.
  3. If RPI is 0.1% in the month of the anniversary then it was 0.1% over the year. The idea is that your initial investment has more spending power at the end of the year than at the start, nomatter what happens to prices in the mean time.
  4. There is overcapacity just about everywhere in the economy, globally. Thanks to the huge malinvestments of the last bubble we might be able to work 4 day weeks and still afford everything we could buy before on 5 days. All of us except those who bought houses in the last 4 years for 80% mortgages, that is.
  5. This is the unofficial borrowing rate for non-fractional lenders to uncollateralised borrowers about whom the lender can find out very little other than their credit score. If this is a sign of things to come it is that credit card rates will tumble.
  6. Apologies. However, you can print your own money and whilst the government doesn't have to accept it for tax purposes other people might accept it as payment. Lewes Pound Bartercard You can keep fiat's value constant if you know the right amount to create or destroy. Unfortunatelty we don't, so the choice comes down to those you state (but it's the amount of money relative to the amount of goods and services that matters, not relative to the population). And you didn't even have to mention violence and slavery to get a good point across (there is a certain amount of unfairness in either case). I assume injin either favours the aristocratic manner, or just hasn't thought about things very hard. Anyway, as for banks continuing to lend, well they keep wanting to throw money at me but I live debt free and will stay that way unless I have a value-creating idea which needs more funds than I have available.
  7. Wouldn't surprise me. He's got no comprehension of... ...I was going to be specific there but perhaps even the word OF is one too many.
  8. Oh dear. If you're going to repeat the mantra then at least get it the right way round.
  9. Getting kicked off, well we can but dream (or leave). This was an interesting thread until he started up with his trolling. It's such a shame for this site that almost anything remotely interesting has to be diverted to whatever drivel injin wants to talk about (and he's only got about 3 topics of conversation). Too much free time, not enough imagination methinks. Boooooring!
  10. The freedom was never taken away, it never existed in the first place. I certainly don't disagree with the evil being the system under which the many are tyrranised by the few, but what I was hoping to express was my view that a government which forces the few to give rights to the many is not evil (whether or not productivity is increased).
  11. That's a dead end. I was being flippant with my example and didn't notice any content in all those words you posted.
  12. I must have misunderstood. Do you have an idea of what might be valid?
  13. The original corporations were monopolies granted by the state for a specific function within the economy and the legal entity which was required back then is still with us today but in a much different form. Today they can decide what their function is and since the legal protection doesn't go as far as a license to kill it isn't really relevant when considering whether a corporation would exist in a truly capitalist economy. If the only limit on what may be done is what can be done then a corporation is a foregone conclusion because of the reduction in transaction costs it facilitates. All it takes is for a set of owners, managers and workers to agree to work according to the principles of a corporation and one will exist. If one exists then a large amount of economic activity will be done under the shell of the corporation because anyone doing it any other way will be less efficient. I agree, the structure of a corporation is very close to socialism.
  14. I wasn't talking about the recession but the tyrrany we create for ourselves under capitalism. Tyrrany is part of the human condition and comes to the fore in any economic system, is/does it not?
  • 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.