Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

threetimesdead

Members
  • Posts

    1,719
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by threetimesdead

  1. ....seems like nits ...doing some nit picking....get the context right....Gordo has destroyed private pensions and final salary schemes in the private sector....and has still not touched the public sector unfunded final pensions ....which are a themselves circa £750 billion.....!......taxpayers bills....!.....let's get real.... <_<

    AAAAA

    Few people do realise their pockets have been emptied completely

    Even fewer know that there is no recourse

    What would you do if someone met you on a highway and took from you everything you spent the last 60 years working for?

    P.S. : the funnyiest thing is that the baby boomers are in complete denial

  2. The idea is to keep everyone in debt..from the age of 18 to your mid / late 60's. University fees to pay, and then on to mortgage repayments, often without a gap, and possibly overlapping. 50 years of constant debt. Sod that.

    The politics of UK are based on the presumtion that the younger you are the more stupid you are and the more advantage of you (or fVck you) we can

    What they miss is that there is a natural limit to everything - including human ignorance and stupidity - at which point the society responds "disproportionately" and brings in the falling blades

  3. Is there anyone here who can explain, clearly and accurately, what, exactly, Quantitive Easing is.

    I hear people say it is the government 'printing money'. I hear others say it isn't. I hear some say it will have to be 'paid back'. Who to?

    Please, no flip one line answers or smart-alec comments.

    I'm sure I'm not the only person who doesn't really understand the mechanics of it.

    Of course

  4. Can't happen. You can't get the result that way - it's like being 200 bricks short of a wall but to complete it chopping all the existing bricks in half.

    Doesn't work.

    There is no "our."

    No, well hyperinflate and the state will fail.

    Keep up at the back.

    As a government you only have to be better than your electorate

    If your mission is to degrade your electorate- it is an eventual mission to degrade yourself

    If your electorate were 10 and you 11

    Now that they are 1 you don't have to be more than 2

    That is a big leap from 11 to 2 - for a govt

  5. New buyers offered deposit loans

    First time buyers in Berkshire are to be offered help in securing a deposit in a new council loan scheme.

    West Berkshire Council said the joint partnership with Newbury Building Society would top up the deposit needed to complete mortgage applications.

    The Equity Loan Deposit Scheme will be funded through £560,000, which has been ring-fenced from housing money.

    Buyers have to be earning less than a combined income of £60,000 and will have to pay 5% of the deposit.

    The scheme was approved in principle by the council on Thursday.

    It also proposed a shared-ownership support scheme, that will make £60,000 available to Housing Associations aimed at lower income key workers.

    Councillor Alan Law, executive member for planning and housing, said: "Whereas prior to the recession, mortgage seekers needed only to find an initial 5% deposit, typically those offering loans are requiring deposits of 10-15% of the purchase price.

    "This new partnership venture will mean that a West Berkshire Council loan can be made against any shortfall in the deposit where the applicant has otherwise satisfied all the other criteria set out by Newbury Building Society.

    "We have been working hard for some time to find ways of helping first time buyers."

    Councillor Alan Law

    500k of council tax payer's money taken from the affordable housing budget to maintain house prices. Sheesh!

    Ben Moore the witless BBC journo who did the report for South Today should really stick to covering village fetes.

    So , a few months from now you can successfully sue the council for misseling and fraud?

  6. You have Rich and Poor

    You have them so way apart that the rIch have no idea that the poor have no money to spend as they have no job

    The Rich put their money into stocks hoping that the Poor wil pay for it - the Poor will rule the world without knowing it - they are a majority now

    There is always a limit to which you can milk a cow

    And if you do milk her without feeding her you will die

    Is the system trying to achieve this

  7. Read this it claims to be bullish but it seems pretty bearish to me

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aNoGE_yK6xPA

    More Stocks Reaching 52-Week High Emboldens Bulls: Chart of Day

    Share | Email | Print | A A A

    By Lynn Thomasson

    Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- More U.S. stocks are trading at 52- week highs than at any time since June 2007, a sign to some investors that the steepest rally in 70 years may be sustained.

    The CHART OF THE DAY shows the number of companies at a 52- week high on American exchanges topped 1,069 yesterday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. About a year ago, 14 stocks were at that level.

    “When I see new highs leading the market, it bodes well,” said John Wilson, chief technical strategist at Morgan Keegan & Co., which manages about $120 billion in Memphis, Tennessee. “It wouldn’t surprise me to see a sharp rally in the next quarter. The market is acting like it’s going to take out the recent highs.”

    The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, up 57 percent since March and within 1 percents of its 2009 peak of 1,071.66, has climbed for the past four days in the longest streak of gains in a month. Equities advanced as the government said first-time jobless claims slid to the lowest level since January, Alcoa Inc. unexpectedly reported a profit and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. told investors to buy shares of large banks.

    There have only been 27 days when more U.S. stocks closed at a 52-week high than yesterday, based on data since 2002 tracked by Bloomberg.

    You have Rich and Poor

    You have them so way apart that the rIch have no idea that the poor have no money to spend as they have no job

    The Rich put their money into stocks hoping that the Poor wil pay for it - the Poor will rule the world without knowing it - they are a majority now

  8. That;s right.

    Banking slves all the problem we have because we have banks.

    They shouldn't exist at all, other than as warehouses for valuables.

    I cannot believe his threads are going on and on and on

    I thought people on this site were blessed with a bit more of a foresight than the average

    Now to you spaticus...

    Go fVck youyself, go fVck all your friends @ Tr, Bo, Nos 9 and 10 and so on who got us to where we are and swallow your fVcking syonyde

    And yes, I am one of the least swering posterts on here

  9. I believe its the BoE and not Gordon Brown who decide how much QE can be allowed to grow to?

    The Tories are not saying they will stop QE, they appear to be saying they would stop it sooner than Labour would... <_<

    The BoE have to have a permission from the Treasury to ease

    I am glad to see they actually joining this forum - a sign of panic and doubt over their own actions

    We need a general election now - before more damage is done

  10. Yes, George Osborne absolutely exudes financial competence compared to Vince Cable. :blink: Go on and vote for the duck house and moat party if you think it'll help things.

    Edit: I've just just read George Osborne's wikipedia entry. If anyone thinks he's the one to deal with a financial crisis, they want their heads examined. Kenneth Clarke may be an unprincipled git, but he has at least got an iota of financial nous. If he were shadow chancellor, I might just consider voting for them.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/08/tories-raise-vat-emergency-budget

    Patrick Wintour and Nicholas Watt The Guardian, Thursday 8 October 2009 Article history

    The Conservative leadership would aim to push through an emergency budget, including spending cuts and a possible rise in VAT, with the support of the Liberal Democrats if David Cameron fails to secure an overall majority in the Commons at the general election.

    The revelation that senior Tories see the Lib Dems as their natural partners comes on the eve of Cameron's final party conference speech before the election in which he will declare he is "ready to be tested" as prime minister.

  11. A 30% fall from the peak of October 2007 would bring this ratio back in line with the long-term average.

    "In comparison, the house price declines in the recession of the early 1990s saw the average house-price-to-income ratio fall below the long-term trend."

    The group warned that unemployment, which it expects to peak next year and remain high into 2011, would weigh on house prices.

  12. No they won't lie like Brown. They can tell the truth because they are in oposition. It's when they get in control and protect their interest that's when things go wrong. The game is to vote for them who's interst is most like your own. In my case I don't have anything in common (mainly because I am common) with David and the people he choses to have by his side like Kirsty Allslop. So it's Lib dem Lier Labour Ukip for me. least I think your choice

    If they cannot/don't want to tell us the whole truth while they are in opposition what is to be expected when in power?

  13. New Labour and Tories are just different sides to the same coin.

    It doesnt matter whos in power.

    The just take turns in ******ing working people over.

    Now its the Tories turn.

    May be not - may be a hang parliament

    The consensus seems to be that neither L nor T will do enough

    So whoever forms a govt without a majority will have to pool in the LDs

  14. Exact figures as stated are impossible so we are into the realms of guesstimates.

    Iraq Body count gives a figure of rougly 100,000 dead, this is reported casualties so clearly ignores a large proportion of the actual casualties which go unreported. According to the 2006 Lancet study: "Aside from Bosnia, we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance [used by the IBC] recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods [used in the Lancet studies]"

    The Lancet themselves give arrive at an estimate of approximately 600,000 violent deaths by June 2006.

    The ORB survey updated in January 2008 gives an estimate of roughly 1,000,000 deaths

    You accept a figure of 120,000 deaths from suicide bombers. Based on the ORB survey: "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance." If 26% of the deaths were a result of bombs then that implies 460,000 total casualties.

    Clearly the margin of error is huge however in the absence of definitive figures 500,000 seems a reasonable estimate of the excess deaths as a result of the conflict.

    In Rwanda they called it genocide and issued warrants against perpetrators of crimes against humanity

    In Iraq they call it collateral damage

    Edit: Also, it took just 100,000 bodies to get Saddam hanged - with 1mln bodies now we should have at least 10 more candidates

  15. Thought I had. Obviosuly not so I'll try again.

    The debt based monetary system is not a ponzi scheme since interest payments on the existing money stock may be serviced through multiple circulations of that money stock, without the size of that money supply changing, in conjunctions with the fact that not all interest on a loan is due at one instant. Regardless of whether you consider the circuit broken when a given debt£ is repaid, given that GDP > money_supply, we can say that the money_supply must have circulated more than once each year.

    The money supply is a stock. Aggregate debt level is a stock. Interest, and incomes are flows. Once that distinction is understood, it is possible to see how a debt based money system can remain in a steady state and be perfectly sustainable.

    If this is not clear, I'll have to try again.

    This would only be true if velocity of money could grow ever faster and faster and ad infitum

  16. What about the notion put forward by Gordon Brown that Debt is Dandy?

    I dont have any debt and its making me feel left out. Does anyone know where I can get some? And if there are any great rates/offers available?

×
×
  • 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.