pppeter

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh dear. If you're going to repeat the mantra then at least get it the right way round.

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!

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).

That makes sense.

That's a dead end. I was being flippant with my example and didn't notice any content in all those words you posted.

I must have misunderstood. Do you have an idea of what might be valid?

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.

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?

Other way round. Humans are communal/tribal and give names to these communities, bringing them into existence. The name extends to the land they own, a convention which has endured millenia. Another of your flaws (I may write them all down for you one day, so you might want to consider getting some more bandwidth) is that you think land cannot be owned. In fact there is no difference between a piece of paper stating "I own this land, ask permission if you want to do business on it" and a convention whereby someone can announce "I am using this land, ask permission if you want to do business on it". In either case violence or the threat of it is required if the owner's/user's "rights" are to be observed.

I saw the 800 year anniversary ones from one of the new towers (Unity?) overlooking the whole city. What a fantastic experience. I didn't know the last lot were on until I heard the noise, pretty much like the whole COC thing - hardly noticed it happened. I couldn't be bothered with it to be honest, just a government piece of nonsense to subsidise some private (mal)investment. Liverpool 1 is much better than I thought it would be but if I want to be cultural I'd rather do it on my own time with my own money.

Thay are one and the same. The corporation was created because it increases efficiency so to separate it from capitalism is to misunderstand what capitalism is. If the corporation didn't exist it would be created.

One flaw is your understanding of evil as an absolute rather than an opinion. As an extreme example, Israel probably thinks it is doing good, not evil, and there are people who agree as well as those who don't. Perhaps it thinks that the evil it does is permissable in that it prevents a greater evil. If we're all made better off (which is again objective) in spite of a certain amount of something which you don't like and choose to label in a particular manner then the prevailing opinion will likely not use the label you choose, making you to all intents and purposes "wrong". In short, you may be the anti-Bush in your philosophy but you share a black and white view of the world is highly immature. When did making people more productive become evil? The weekend was granted to workers after a struggle, so free time must make us productive (quite probable IMO) and the provision of it is evil. Nice one.

There's 2 at the end of my road. You wouldn't have wanted to drink in them though. Another near my mum which used to be a great boozer but was mucked about with by new owners and went bust. No financial stuipidy there, just a misunderstanding of the customer. In addition there's one which closed down in 2007, reopened last year and looks like closing down again. This might get into the stats twice.

That's right - for capitalism to succeed in its current form they need a workforce which is scared and isolated and a consumer base which will sit at home, watching the adverts and buying the stuff. Playing in the street with a wooden hoop or eating fresh fruit instead of processed chocolate just doesn't generate enough profit so that lifestyle is not promoted. The irony is that those who helped create the prevailing lifestyle are probably feeling just as trapped by it as everyone else and only a few at the top are reaping the rewards. This is the tyrrany of capitalism.

The increases in freedom (and the odd restriction) which Britain has enjoyed over the last millenia or more have primarily come from the government fearing a revolt or invasion, and just occasionally someone does good purely because they think it is the right thing to do. Currently the government is most in fear of economic breakdown so will do what it can to prevent that, which will not necessarily be the sort of evolution we want. Vigilance and courage are what's needed, not apathy and patience. Yes, it's been tried before and a lot of the time it did work. Your flawed philosophy hampers your thinking. Stating with the premise "the government is pure evil" will only get you to the conclusion that "the government does pure evil".

The offer in that thread is more likely to be a scam than a good investment. Also, if you want 50 then you'll surpass the £5k transaction limit above which the seller is required to furnish HMG with your name and address. There is also a £10k/year limit with a single retailer so shop around and buy a few from each of a number of sellers. http://bullion-central-uk.blogspot.com/ There are guys on ebay who do sovs in chunks of 10, 20 etc.

The political favours gained by holding (or by not not holding) other countries' bonds are not worthless either.

I know that tax policy is often lop-sided but there's an obvious problem if this is the policy. 1) Buy a BTL house for £100k. 2.i) Find a buyer and sell for £120k, pay CGT on £20k. 2.ii) Find a buyer and borrow £120k to withdraw equity, then sell to buyer for £120k, clear the loan and pay no CGT. Or 1) Set up a business, run it well so the value goes from £0 to £1M. 2 i) Sell for £1M, pay CGT on £1M. 2 ii) Sell shares in the company, retaining a single share worth £1, pay CGT on £1 when you sell that. If they consider equity release to be different to selling then there's a massive loophople.