Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

bogbrush

Members
  • Posts

    6,796
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bogbrush

  1. I thought it was brilliant on the roads this morning. Other than that nobody I know has noticed much difference. Oh, the child minders (or "teachers" as they like to be known) aren't there.
  2. I suspect that for many public sector workers this is a mistake; they really do risk provoking the realisation that we don't really notice their absence. So they have to work to 65 or after. And?
  3. Oh I think they're expressing what they grasp pretty well. Probably not a one of them have any idea of the contribution to the problem made by state enforced currency monopoly and blocked access to markets, they'll just think it's evil people who create wealth and expect to benefit personally through that process. Now if only we had more people like the Archbishop who really understands how to supply all the material things people need to survive...... As my Dad said once to a Priest who complained that he didn't want to fund some development on jointly owned land in a square "I earn my money through my work, you lot pass the plate round and when it comes back you throw it all up in the air and what stays up's His and what comes down's yours".
  4. Ok, so when they stop poncing about self-indulgently and start setting themselves on fire I'll take it seriously.
  5. Yet the answer to all of this mess is more centralised solutions.
  6. It's 200 people, and if Andrew Neil is to be listened to they are Annabel and Tarquin. And it attracts much consideration and comment from the Archbishop of Cantebury. I can't take it even slightly seriously on that basis.
  7. Yep. I already told my customers that their margins pressures aren't my problem, I need higher prices or that's it I won't be sending them any more stuff. I wasn't too sure but my competitors told me it was a sure win and they were right behind me.
  8. I don't think muggle was trying to tell you what to do, just making a logical observation. Some low blows by you there. Your post, though, does contain pretty much all the ingedients of the current problem; nobody wants to die, we all want our kids to live long and prosperous lives. It's hardwired into us. Of course for all of history and beyond, that impulse has battled against the massive pressures of lack of food, inability to combat diseases, and other things trying to kill us. The massive change is our ability to feed ourselves and cure disease. So now what do we do? Just carry on until we reach the point where our knowledge is exhausted? That'll be a long time I think, we're nowhere near done with postponing death. There's every reason to think a few big breakthroughs could see us living to 120, even much longer, soon. Plus food production potential is vast, so long as we're prepared to convert most of the World into food producing monocultures. Agent Smith maybe wasn't that far off the mark after all.
  9. With excellent infant care 3 = growth. China implemented 1, but will have a problem of an ageing population in return. Actually, I think birth rates aren't the problem, it's declining death rates and increasing life expectancy that's messing it up.
  10. Are all the boomers still here or shouldn't they all be at the Bilderburg conference? Seriously, posts like this are just lame. Still, great that Uni applications are down, so much wasted time being retrieved - now just have to find something useful to do with it.....
  11. We do seem to be a bit trapped. We cannot contemplate artifically reducing the population (on a meaningful scale, conventional warfare has trivial impact easily recovered from). We cannot prevent people from reproducing, and even when we do it is counter productive in the medium term as the population ages dramatically. We cannot resist the urge to increase life expectancy. So I suppose 7 will become 8, and so on and so on. Perhaps when everywhere has become like the developed Western nations then it'll stop, but anyone know what the population will be by then? And for the comparison to be complete then each of those people will consume a lot more than the average person now. Bit depressing really, we do seem to resemble one of those bugs plated out on a petri dish that covers the whole thing in a few days. It'll keep house prices up though.
  12. It won't happen by choice, I agree. But it's coming, along with many other contractions that will prove far more painful.
  13. This is what drives me nuts. There is no recession, the economy was simply never as big as it was pumped up to be. we never did have a fully funded Health service, we never did have any of this stuff, it was just on tick. The problem comes when you measure an economy on consumption and don't net off the increase in credit.
  14. In the end living standards have to crash because they were never raised through wealth creation. Obvious really.
  15. Sorry, my wording was ambiguous. What I meant to say that only with a state could the wholesale monopolisation of land be perpetrated. Thanks for the reference, I'll take a look.
  16. Pensions are the problem, not the solution. Your money just goes to oil the wheels of great big pensions companies when you could be investing it yourself. Basically, don't pay into a Pension, it's a mugs game.
  17. What's this nonsense about market value and utility value? The price you'll pay is that which you'd rather have the thing than the money. If other peoples value is way below yours then you're going to get a bargain, if the other way then you won't buy it. Individual people always (nearly) have a different value than the general market, that's why they get bargains or decline to buy.
  18. The role of the State is to create and maintain monopolies. Why would the ultimate monopoly do anything else. This "race to the bottom" whinge that wonderpup always goes on about is not the problem; the issue is restrictions on access to markets, state inspired private ownership of common assets (could anyone explain to me how land could ever be owned without a state?), modern education and the monopoloy money system. In the absence of that stuff the so-called race to the bottom is nothing more than people making offers.
  19. Yeah? Sounds like more self-interest to me, and certainly nothing whatsoever to do with Fords wage policy, which is what the earlier poster was writing about.
  20. Volume down 5%, price down 4% (which may or not be mix). Profit of £40.5m Down on last year, but last year included a massive write-back of book value. Sounds like this year may be up on last year exckuding revaluation. Not exactly a disaster I'd have thought.
  21. What does that make their top rate? Higher than our 50%? All gesture stuff anyway, it raises no money at all to implement these premium rates on top earners. EDIT: To answer my own question, their top rate is currently 41%, so it looks like our wealthiest are already considerably more "in it together" than these lot. No need for "Osborne" to act then?
  22. Not this Ford thing again. Ford was just an enlightened businessman who realised that he could make higher profits by paying more for the better people, having stability and high skill so he could concentrate on his big thing of lowering production costs and supplying a huge market. Nothing at all to do with having the dosh to buy his cars; his own workforce would have represented 0.00001% of his market and their changed status would be irrelevent, but it's a convenient cloak to wear I guess. Think about it; how is it profitable to pay someone to buy your stuff? Easier just to keep the 100% than hand it over and hope some of it comes back so you can make your margin on it. Nothing else. Pure profit maximisation, and good on him.
  23. Good, the right things being recognised. Government cannot stimulate Britain out of this mess, all the State is capable of doing is robbing wealth and wasting it. We need to stop stopping people doing stuff (fairly easy really, just shut down regulations left right and centre) but the hard part is to make it cheaper to live in this country, and that means slaughter the value of land. Only way I can see to do it that won't end up in Courts for 50 years is to dramatically relax planning laws and make a windfall tax on inflated agricultural land (that in attractive building areas) appreciation as a result. Result is that living cost drops and much of the appreciation of value is shared to the common pot. Have to leave some with the owner or they'll retain it for agriculture. House prices drop through the floor which messes the banks up but I guess the time would come to take them on at their true value (nil) to preserve the money system - I doubt we can change the Worlds money system just by ourselves. There'd be very rough consequences but that's coming anyway. Relying on the State to create a vibrant economy would be very funny if it wasn't so tragic.
  24. Top 0.1% earners is not the same as those who hoarded wealth from bubbles. The sets overlap but are not the same. The former include the people whose ideas create wealth, the latter are parasites. Got to be careful that in taking out one you don't lose the other.
  25. I'm sympathetic, but I posed the question because at the end of every single treatment, no matter what we think of it, is a well made case for need accompanied potentially by a Human Rights suit. I think it was Enoch Powell who said that the problem with the NHS would be that there will always be infinite demand for a free resource. How can we get our heads around what we've been trained to ignore all out lives - that there comes a point when you're just not worth treating? I'm thinking a Jack Nicholson moment in "A Few Good Men".
×
×
  • 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.