Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

daniel stallion

New Members
  • Posts

    1,728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by daniel stallion

  1. I have a 52" Plasma ... actually I have 2 ..... I'm just lashing out in shame ..... shame tinged with not really caring .....
  2. Maybe - but screw everyone else, I want to do it before the AK47's start spraying debt bullets in the streets. I actually have zero debt, but might rack some up. I think Injin is right, they lend me 'money' that didn't previously exist, which never manifests beyond numbers on a screen - then charge me interest and threaten to destroy me if I don't pay them back in actual money. If I don;t pay them back it actually makes no material difference to them.
  3. Does that ever work? I mean has anyone successfully done it in the UK (I've heard stories of it being done over seas and even with things like HP in the UK but that was a 'paperwork issue' and never on a mortgage)?
  4. Not true! Clegg and Cameron both looked like they were thinking: 'WTF ... is this a serious question?' I'm sure they actually wanted to say - 'sir, you have just explained a massive part of the problem, it is utter madness'. I think a lot of Public sector workers say 'banker' but mean 'private sector'. They literally cannot comprehend the idea that everyone will have to be impacted. They think 'everyone' means 'everyone else'.
  5. Also, can someone clarify something for me. Am I understanding correctly that the coalition are stating that Labour had 'baked in' £44Billions of spending 'cuts' in to financial projections but had not costed a single penny of it? So if they are to find, say, £6 Billions cuts, they actually need to find £50 Billions?
  6. It was like watching drug addicts being told they wont be given free drugs anymore. Everyone agrees drugs are bad - but are outraged when they are told their drug of choice isn't going to be handed out gratis anymore. It is also maddening to hear the constant references to 'bankers' as the cause of the debt. Not even vaguely true. I'm irritated that Cameron and his posse don't make it more clear. There are two issues, related, but distinct. A massive debt / structural deficit largely fuelled by Labour buying votes and a financial crisis. The latter has exacerbated the first, in fact, in some ways it was useful because it exposed the disgraceful tactics of Labour over the last 13 years.
  7. I'm not entirely sure. However, I'd guess the following are major reasons: a.) Cars overtly deteriorate and depreciate very quickly. Houses can literally last for hundreds of years. Probably a lot less true of some of the rubbish built in the modern era, but even still - most houses will remain perfectly functional far longer than the person buying them. b.) Due to the above - people see cars as transient - something they buy and fully 'consume' (or sell at residual value) relatively rapidly. c.) A house (or rather abode) is seen as a core element of a persons life. You sleep, cook, raise kids, retreat etc etc in your home, but a car is a 'tool'. Given this I think lots of people will 'stretch' themselves, to buy cars they really can't afford, but to nowhere near the extent that they will for houses because houses, even in the 2/3 x salary scenario suggested will not rapidly decline in value as cars do. I guess you are alluding to the fact that people will spend to such grotesque excess on houses because 1.) Banks will fund the excess and 2.) People believe house prices will be in the ascendancy forever. 1 Is definitely true, however, 2, whilst massively responsible for ever increasing speculation and a vicious circle of price rises, is not in my opinion the major factor for people spending as much as they can - I think that would still happen if houses were 3 x salary and only increased inline with inflation. I'd contend that certain elements of the housing market exacerbate the desire to spend as much as possible, but even if they were eliminated people would do exactly the same (just their ability to do so may be reduced). That is, people would still buy houses as big and as impressive as possible, even if it put them in financial peril.
  8. Partly because lots of people, probably a vast majority, don't want to live in a house they can easily afford, they want to live in the biggest / best / most impressively located house they can scrape enough money together to live in. If the 'average' house came down to 2x average salary, lots and lots of people, given the opportunity would still spend 3,4,5,6 x their salary.
  9. For clarity, I meant to write 'elected Politician'. Like I say, it does make the Government look stupid. My point was simply that debating against Campbell is like shouting in a vacuum.
  10. Why is it that Labour members of staff supporters in the audience, week after week, insist that 'the left won the election' and make the assumption that anyone who voted for Lib Dem's really wanted Labour to win? Is it justified? Of all the people I know that voted Lib Dem I'd say less than 30% of them had Labour as their second choice. Am I speaking to the wrong people?
  11. Does make the Govt look stupid on the face of it. However, Alistair Campbell is a professional spinning machine who lies about reasons for killing thousands of people - and he isn't a Politician.
  12. Ahhh, this is Question Time. Watching I thought it was the Labour Party Conference.
  13. Interesting. I don't have time to look at the moment, but does this guy, that website etc have suggestions regarding what to do about it?
  14. Yeah, that is definitely true (although he wasn't alone). I have no issue with Vince, I think he generally talks more sense that his counterparts and I am certain he was quickly reigned in from 'telling it like it was' following the crash to prevent the Libs being 'damaged' with talks about massive cuts. I like him. However, I was just quite interested to see if the legend of the man who called the crisis, was real or a bit of a myth. There were definitely a significant number of voices that were spot on regarding subprime, CDO's etc etc. Just wondered if he was really one of them, I have to say I don't think he was - but that's the image (which to be fair he somewhat rejects himself now I've started looking specifically at his statements).
  15. Fair enough. I'll be honest with you - our brief exchange of posts is somewhat typical of what I have found so far - lots of triumphant claiming that he stood alone in his foresightedness and insight (in your own words 'he wrote the book on the crash') but, as yet, other than evidence of him expressing concerns regarding personal debt and poor banking regulations, along with many others, nothing that really makes him stand out as someone that really knew what was coming. Now, I realise your statement was deliberate hyperbole for the purposes of an internet forum exchange and I commend Mr Cable for his opinions. However, if you listen to Mr Clegg (and others) he insinuates that Vince was an economic Galileo. Perhaps he was/is, but it seems strangely difficult, given the data rich world we live in, to find real evidence for this.
  16. To be fair (to you) Osbourne did look like it was news to him - I think he just said 'erm'. On your second point, and maybe I'm misunderstanding the essence of the comment, can you provide any links to Cable 'calling' the crash before the airbags were inflating? Genuinely, I'm interested in what he actually said, whilst I have no reason to believe he didn't issue warnings I honestly can't find any evidence of him doing so - other than some very, very broad comments on house prices and debt. I'm not specifically looking to prove him right or wrong, I ask as I was looking at Keynesian vs Austrian theories. This has naturally unearthed lots of details of people that issued fairly specific warnings about the crash before it happened, with a genuine degree of clarity and accuracy regarding how it would happen - as yet I haven't seen anything that would legitimately place Cable in this group. Maybe I just haven't seen the right information as yet?
  17. i think the interviewers point was: Why are we squabbling like little girls about 6 Billion when we spend 600+ Billion and were spending way less only a couple of years ago ? BTW - I don't necessarily ascribe to his point I just thought it was an interesting topic to stimulate you all * * in to debate
  18. Interview with Osbourne now - Randall stated that if 50 Billion was cut from Public spending next year overall spending would still be greater (inflation adjusted) than 2007/08. He pointed out that during those years there didn't seem to be huge painful problems with 'services'. So what happened? What's the problem? 50 Billion should be a POP Edit: For clarity the interviewer was stating this - not Osbourne
×
×
  • 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.