Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Aidan Ap Word

Members
  • Posts

    1,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aidan Ap Word

  1. Why I can't decide who to vote for (at a national level anyway) ... is because I suspect whoever ends up in puppet-leadership-for-the-paymasters we will end up QE to infinity. I would also prefer said QE were spent on meaningful services and stuff that supports real growth and not paying the paymasters. I suspect this will happen regardless of what colour the party wears. But also: I would far rather the QE were British QE that the British people have some (meagre) hope of holding parliament accountable for. The alternative: the EU/EURO QE where accountability is even further in the dim & distant lands than our own parliamentary and (wannabe) democracy and is already very much in full swing. Bearing in mind that QE to infinity in the UE is real and measured. 20 billion per month. On top of the months and months of 50 and 70 billion per month. OK, so that is for 9 times as many people ... but the numbers really are eye-watering ... right up into the definition of "QE to infinity" ... So on that baiss alone I am left thinking the only option I have left is to vote against the EU membership (yup, the referendum all over again). And only 1 party has both: enough backbone to take a defined position on this; and a hope of a majority leadership position. Might have to vote with the bile rising slowly in my mouth ...
  2. You might want to check how many times the Labour MPs thwarted the democratic process by simply choosing not to vote on anything they didn't like. And, no, choosing not to vote is not the same as placing a "no" vote (or a "yes" vote for that matter). So who are the bumbling ones , I wonder? They (as a party, not necessarily as individuals, because I don't know) don't even have enough backbone to actually take part in democracy. When democratic process is exactly what they are paid (Tory and Labour alike, and all of them basically) to take part in the democratic process. So I would respectfully ask you to check carefully as to exactly who has been screwing whom before voting Labour.
  3. Easy for Corbyn to bash The PayMasters while he is not in power. Also: Corbyn is right (to a greater or lesser degree) on this one. But even a broken clock ...
  4. +1 And I have added the bold become it chimes with me that I feel like a frog swimming in slowly boiling water - and I suspect many other people are too - probem is when you are a frog who can see it happening ... makes me wish I hadn't had my eyes opened to the vacuous nature of things. Still, I could be living in a country where things are a LOT worse than this.
  5. For the most part it seems to me that the Boomersplaining-Boomer* ... they have no idea what the value of their housing security was because tmany of them have never had to do without. Where "do without" can be anything in this sort of range: the (relatively innocuous) having to find another rental property as a couple having your life invaded by a rogue landlord having to help your friends move out of student accommodation that is abnkle-deep in sewage because of the Boomer landlord who doesn't care about building regs and repairs having to move out of that same apartment on your own raising children in a mould-infested germ fest that you are not allowed to repair even if you have the cash to do so * as opposed to the nuemrous people born and grew up at that time who can add two numbers together and see the truth
  6. The response to boomersplaining is to walk away. Wasteful try and have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
  7. ... let's be clear ... ICE will never be safe ... to think so is just a refined "I'm alright Jack" atitude that I would not expect to see from a thinking person. This whole thread is not about the "dystopia" that a bubble-everyone-and-lock-them-in-a-cupboard would be. What is the "misery" of using an EV anyway? Lower performance? No. Lower safety? No. Less function? Heck, no. Less noise? Yes. (Odd definition of "misery", that). Not having to go to a petrol station? No - that is not a misery either ... ask anyone in Telford if they were reminded of the safety recently ... And to make parallels with the safety of cycling is naive, at best. Cyclists are killed and injured by the very bicycles they are riding? Other people are harmed by the action of cycling? Peiopel die in wars to ensure that people can keep ridingtheir bicycles? Cyclists are harmed by the network supporting their use? Cyclists are harming others by requiring someone to risk dangerous helicopter landings over remote oceans in windy conditions? Cyclists are partly responsible for explosions in public places that kill dozens? No, cyclists are killed and injured because the network safety is not at a level where they can enjoy their transport/utility balanced against a measurable level of risk. We can debate the safety requirements around that separately. But they (and others) are not killed by the method of transport itself - and that is what makes the entrenchement of ICE tech something that a non-hypocrit should rail against. In the case of damage from ICE (most specifically the source, network for, and the impact of the destruction of fossil fuels) ... this is not about making stuff safe to a greater or lesser extent. Even with our best efforts in making it "safe" - people are going to get maimed and killed. And it is only going to get worse (eg: fruitful oil fields continue to get more and more inaccesible, and more). Dieselgate. They alleged they were making them "safer" over years but what followed was organised fraud. Then when they were caught and (allegedly) "fixed" the problem all they really did was change the parameters used so that ICE vehicles continued to polute well beyond acceptable "safe" levels the moment you got outside the range of 10<->32 degress celcius. So much for "knowing how to manage the safety" of fossil fuel burning. What from my posts suggests I am talking about anything other than EVs? People in ICE cars are the miserable ones (ask anyone who has to scrape (water) ice of their car windscreen if they are in a mise4rable place or not). This is just plain FUD craziness. 1 person dies every three days in the extraction and refinement alone. Show me the list of people who have died in the production of EVs? * We know how to deal with the risks of fuel ... but we cannot deal with them enough to stop people from dying. We as a society have just learnt to accept (or be dleiberately blind to) the death invovled. I present that you have become blind to this. People have come to serious harm and died in all of these cases - none of which are dependencies for EVs - despite our best efforts at safety (and this list is hardly all of them): On oil rigs (especially, but not limited to, helicopter incidents) In accidents involving ocean going ships freighting oil around the world On clean up operations skimming the spilt ooiil back up In accidents with fuel tankers on the roads In explosions at refineries and distribution centres In explosions exacerbated by the tanks of explosive in road accidents In polution In oil-based wars In human rights abuses in oil-rich coutnries (where "safety" is often utterly ignored) And that is before you get anywhere near the real personal issues: EVs are intrinsically safer * And before you mention Cobalt and artisan miners ... Cobalt is widely used in many things - not least of which in the refinement of fuel oil. Cobalt is used to remove the sulphur fromt he fuel oil ... which is a safety issue with fuel oil ... so you can't argue that the cobalt supply issues are unique to RVs withou accepting the irony that much of that mining is in fact in "deal[ing] with the risks of fuel" in the first place. And the Cobalt in the fuel oil refinement and use cases is destroyed which is differernt fromt he Cobalt used in Lithium ion batteries which can be recycled.
  8. Ummm ... no. The grid is capable of expanding (and quickly at that) -> and it was harder to expand when you had to put a big power station in place ... now that solar is cheaper than coal ... it is both logisitically easier and (in accounting terms and ROI and asset depreciation and maintenance and capital expenditure) to expand it than it has ever been beofre. An there is little sign of this benefit slowing down. Hint: lots of coal power stations are being decommissioned ... we are hardly facing rolling brown-outs as this happens ... the people running the networks are not fools. And the network will always best be managed on the cusp of "hardly being able to cope" .. otherwise industry isn't doing it's job ... because wasting resources and opportunity cost supplying significantly more than what is needed *at that time* is just silly. Yes, batteries are going to take lots of energy to manage throughtheir whole lifetimes. Of coruse, thay are lasting a lot longer than anyone really predicted ... so the energy requirements for the recycling discipline have not come online as yet ... in one of life's great ironies. Even if all the vehicles on the road moved to EVs quicker than even the maddest of us hope for ... the proportion of electrical supply requirements would still be a relatively small part of the supply needs of the country (most of what is consumed is big industry today anyway). And there is a lot of opportunity for capture of electricity right on the consumer's doorstep. OK, so on their roof, but I think you get my meaning. And this will - in terms of smoothing the onboarding of increased supply - be positively affected by the simplest way to "recycle" an EV battery ... stick it in storage batery on a wall and raise the utility of the photovoltaic panels signficiantly. And on the "replacing natural gas" question ... there are a lot of countries out there where natural gas hasn't ever been used. Like the ones with big distances between the conurbations.
  9. As in EVs are - per mile driven - safer than iCE cars. This is proven fact, do I need to link to the data agin? ... It's hard for me to prefer to live in a world where more people die than is necessary. And I make no excuse for wanting to live my life using technology that objectively and provably (and proven) that involves fewer people dying. It does get subjective if I prefer the EV experience over the ICE one, and you clearly feel differently. But folks who choose the dangerous and destructive over the viable alternative, prefering the (false) "convenience", noisier-is-allegedly-better, or (allegedly) "more soulful" vehicle really do - in my opinion - need to hold themselves to account for that. I used ICE when I had no alternative. I was - through no fault of my own - presented with the opportunity to move to a better (objectively or otherwise) experience and so I did so as earely as I could. Millions of people have not been so lucky to be able to make that switch ... yet. But I will continue to call out the media and corporates who - through their own self interest - slow or confuse the growing opportunity for others to make the switch. And I will continue to challenge people who want the past over the future for their own subjective preferences ... up to the point where they either: accept that their decisions have real impacts on people's lives or I am convinced that it is falling on deaf ears
  10. I suspect it was a spectrum of outcomes for people ... https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:uk:fr&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployment_rate&fdim_y=seasonality:sa&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:uk:fr:de:it&ifdim=country_group&tstart=410486400000&tend=1570143600000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false For a little perspective, select Spain from the list ...
  11. The balance of impact to the innocent 'vs' the issue of principle is clear and understood in the case of big commercial banks. And whether I like that the bail outs happened or not is irrelevant. Agreed. My point being, though: when a failing private sector business is nationalised it is effectively being bailed out. And, to add injury to injury, it will often entrench the behaviour of that business to be less dynamic and less able to change. Even in case(s) where the only "error" of the bausiness is to be in a declining sector. And on top of that the leaders of the failed business don't face any consequences so they never learn the responsibility. They just go on to the next business to do the mess up all over again. And the engineers/administrators/workers and wage slaves of the business take all the pain. So unless it is a business that is genuinely too big to fail then it should be left to fail. And big claw-backs from the overpaid leadership should follow (within the limits of their culpability int he failure of the business, at least - which you will never be able to measure anyway). The big bank bailout was indeed necessary. Nor am I saying that the consequences were faced by the muppets who got us into those situations - and that is a strong source of "righteous" indignation and anger. But that is a separate topic (and has been covered elsewhere, again and again and again).
  12. So what you are suggesting is: that we need to bail out the private sector the tune of 1.8 trillion (why?) that the bail out of the banking sector has made it better and that we should repeat it for all the other stuff? (really?) ... your logic because all the firms that need to be bailed out are "too big to fail" ... um, maybe some of them ... but if the shareholders never take the hit for investing in zombie corporates ... (that is: failing miserably to do their jobs ... ah yes, the commercial bankers) then the shareholders will never learn any lessons ... *and* the zombie corporates will never learn any lessons either. That is rinse&repeat economics ... hmmm, not sure I am that keen. Bold is mine, and a minor correction in the mathematics.
  13. Yes, ecause big government in inherently massively efficient. Not.
  14. True. But the hardship later in life is exactly during that period when they should be setting up for their retirement and for the next generation ... the boomers (some / many? of them) had it hard when hey were young but then their most prolific (financially) years were relatively easy ... so they did have the opportunity to set a strong foundatioin for those following. Many of them haven't. I don't have an issue with those (who were either unable to see the importance OR unwilling to give a monkeys for others). The Boomers that really make me angry are the ones who show attitude or entitltement when they are pulled up on their misdeeds and ignorance. Would that the proportion of Boomers who do this (and/or believe the mainstream media froth about smashed avo sandwiches) and then get all "holier than thou" when in fact very few people in these conversations have even seen the hardship of a starving drug addicted child running from the gangs shooting at them.
  15. Your number make sense. But only because these asset classes are soaking up money from the (virtual) printing presses which means I have to accept all the chaos that the endless debt generation/money creation wreaks on my life (and the legacy it leaves for my children) ... to "acheive" 6% nominal.
  16. That all assumes that growth will be: i) real ii) better than 1 or 2% a year A mid-twenties person today starting contributions might not ever see those ... the world of savings has been decimated for a good decade now. When I started paying into a UK pension (having arrived inthe UK 20 years ago) the scenarios presented were all about growth forecasts on 3 levels: 3%, 5% and 7%. Which seem pitifully optimistic in this season (which has been going on for a number of years). And that 1.1mil total of all income is gross of tax too. So you are still talking about approaching 20% of all income.
  17. I agree totally as to where the blame lies. What makes a boomer a Boomer is their attitude and their inability to read the truth. I come from a country in which many people lead lives of hardship that would make most (all but the most extreme) stories of hardhsip in the UK look quite ... well, a lot less like hardship. Think: the suicide rates of children growing up homless on the streets of one of the murder capitals of the world where the "high life" is getting the next glue-inspired high. Iwon the birthplace/parents lottery living there ... so I didn't face that but at least I am capable of "seeing" what is really gong on around me. It's the boomer's who are so myopic that they think they know what harship really is that get me very angry. The opening post shows how many many people in that generation did indeed have significant hardship growing up. Only the most naive would suggest it was all a cake walk. Coupled with the fact that I made the jump to the UK too late to live the gravy train of 90s and 00s epic HPI ... that I exhibit (near) boomerism because of my age/demographic ... but have nothing of the extra benefits that many of that generation did gain ...and whilst I know I will show lack of vision and empathy/perception along with the best of them sometimes ... I will actively pursue the anti-Boomer choices in my life.
  18. OK, not disagreeing. Just a little concerned that: "a lump sum [total pension pot?] of £242,000, which is much more easily attainable for most workers in the UK" Which seems a little odd to say since most works in the UK only earn up to about 1.1mil in their working lives (25k * 45 years) - so that would mean approaching 20% of their gross income into their pension pots for the entirety of their working lives ... so yes, that is "more easily" attainable than some of the scenarios presented earlier .. but I seriously doubt people are doing this. A "generous" pension for a permanent employee is 3% employee and 7% employer ... surely?
  19. So to gather a 500k pension pot when the average person only garners +-100k (1 mil) in their entire lifetime ... 500k feels utterly insane. Wish you were wrong. Just sat through 1hour of "pension presentaion" at my company with (relatively!!!) generous pension package for employees ... and Oh My Word the double-speak ... vast quantities of diversion and obfuscation and even a few out&out lies ... (that, it appears, was being swallowed word for word) ... and the professionals around me are just all too happy to lap up the lies.
  20. Thing I am concerned about on this is - as a holder of a DC pension and some (probably incomplete) state pension - to get to a retirement income of +-22k a year ... it is being suggested by my pension provider that I will need a (private) pension pot well in excess of 250k ... I have been in the fortunate (if hardworking) position that I might get close to this by the time I retire ... but I can't see myself doing much better than the median in retirement. And this despite having worked enough to get into higher income (and responsibility and pressure) roles ... I take on significantly more pressure than a number of my peers ... only to find out that I am going to pretty much be facing a mediocre retirement. Makes me wonder why I bothered in the first place ...
  21. The point here is that the Nest is installed, and only the owner can control it (through the app) - because only the owner will have credentials for this. And these things are (arguably) as hardy as an analogue thermostat in the first place. You can pull them off the wall and then they disconnect .. but only if you actually try to do this. Perhaps they don't want the controller stolen when the house is empty (bearing in mind: any residents have a vested interest in that not happening anyway). That said: if someone wanted to steal the controller the box wouldn't stop them anyway ...
  22. Given that you can rent a 6 bedroom house within a few miles of there for 2k per month. Let's assume the "arrears" athered up at 2k per month -> that's 14.5 months worth of arrears. If it does indeed take (practically) a year to get a tenant out of a property when 0 rent is being paid, then I might start feeling some sympathy. But 29k of arrears, I smell something about this stroy. /me looks who published it ... ah yes. How dumb must people be to swallow this stuff enough that it makes it worth the Daily Flail the time and effort to publish this?
  23. If that was the case then why would the landlord wrap the controller in a box in the first place?
  24. Possibly the landlord doesn't want any of the tenants using the pohysical control to detach the Nest controller from the Nest account that the landlord will have access to. This way the "poor" landlord would no longer be able to monitor the heating (and intrude ont he lives of the tenants).
  25. If you donot use the physical access you have to use account access, which is not goignt o be shared with the tenants. Physical access will have been their oknly option.
×
×
  • 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.