Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About deciphermonkey

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. It's a shame but it seems like leaving the UK is the only way forwards these days. At least you won't have to fund the massive pension deficit or the government bail out if you pick your destination carefully. I have quite a few friends from school / university that have already left the country for a variety of destinations. I left a few years ago too. For a long time i felt quite embarrassed about our reputation aboard mainly based on the behaviour of our football fans however now I think that I’m more ashamed of our government. Given the government and BOE economic response of the last year I suspect that things are going to get much work before they get better. Unfortunately it will probably take a large chunk of our lifetime to play out.
  2. It seems like the more time you spend looking into the news the more contrived it appears to be. Watching some of the reports yesterday on Sky and BBC they only seemed to focus on a couple of bits of violence and not on the masses of people peacefully protesting. Anyone not taking the time to look behind the scenes will believe the main stream press because the public sees anyone who doesn’t believe them as head cases. The internet seems to be helping some people to see this but not very quickly. Lets face it, if you are young and have bought a house in the last 5 years then you are not going to have much spare time to dig around for the truth as you are too busy paying off your horrendous mortgage. That’s the true reason why the government will do anything to keep house prices rising, it’s all about control. All of the bail out money is at least going to a small group of people in the banking sector which will only make the rich richer and the poor poorer and exacerbate the problem. This should wake more people up to exactly what’s going on and maybe then something will happen. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the only way to win in this democracy is to play the system to its conclusion. This means not voting for the party that is best for you but voting for the worst. Currently for me that’s either another four years of Labour or the BNP. Eventually the system will implode.
  3. Breaking the law and then bragging about it on a public forum? Well done. Way to command respect from people. It would seem that you are no better than the people that you were hitting then?
  4. That’s hilarious. If the anarchists give you a good kicking-in the police will for being such a tw@t! If only you didn’t just say that you worked in the City I would believe you but sadly you are probably full of ...it.
  5. I find this aspect of outsourcing and I.T. fascinating. Due to the nature of the work it can often be so easily outsourced by managers (consequences aside). The only conclusion that I have come to is that there will be a global rate for salaries for people who work as developers which I suppose is why in the UK these people are getting a similar rate now as they were 5 years ago. Managers on the other hand get paid more and more. Does this mean that all development work in the UK will dry up in the future as it is cheaper to do it else were? Like most the other careers where people actually make / produce something those skills will be undervalued and eventually lost in the UK. Is the UK just going to be a country of under-qualified and over-paid project managers? I keep coming to the conclusion that this must be a problem with globalisation and multinationals. They are so big and each job so specialised that whenever anything goes wrong there is never a single person to blame. We are seeing this in the financial sector now as everyone blames everyone else for the mistakes and no one gets takes the blame. I would rather pay more to a local company for goods than pay less to a multinational as my despise for them is reaching new levels.
  6. I totally agree. It was / still is outrageous that so many people were protesting about the war and nothing was done. I'm not sure that once we were in Iraq that pulling out immediately would have been the best solution but the fact there was not a public enquiry into the reasons for going to war disgusts me. I would be quite happy if Blair / Bush and all the other people involved were put in prison for their part. They should be but short of a revolution it’s not going to happen. What the protests did show is the government are scared. They banned protests outside parliament and they hid discussions about reasons for going to Iraq because they know they are wrong. They made knee jerk reactions to cover up their errors and in doing so undermined their moral authority. They have continued to undermine their authority for a long time now ever since rushing through all these anti-terrorism laws and trying to scare the hell out of people. If the G20 protests are big enough and the organisers were to divert the route to go directly past the houses of parliament then that would be a good thing for England. It would show that the law was unjust. The police would not be able to arrest everyone and it would make them look like idiots for trying to enforce a ridiculous law. If the police use violence to stop the (non violent) protests and enough video footage makes it onto YouTube then there is a fighting chance that the general public will see what really happened and it would further undermine their authority. I just saw a video on YouTube where a group of protestors are wearing chemical suits covering body and face (probably made from bin liners) but imagine the message it will send out if 100K people were wearing them. Surveillance and video cameras are instantly rendered useless because everyone looks the same. All I’m saying here that it’s not all as bad as it might appear; it's just a slow process. I totally agree with you that people are starting to see the effects of the government economic policy although I’m still not sure that it's sufficiently affected the middle class baby boomer enough yet for them to get involved. I have seen the problem for a long time and I'm sure that you have too but there are still a lot of middle class baby boomers who think they have more to lose than gain by anything other than the status quo. I don't think that a tax strike is possible as it's all done automatically through your employer for the vast majority of the population. Employers aren't going to stop paying their employees tax because they have too much to lose. It would only be the directors that are put in prison. I'm convinced that there are plenty of other approaches that can and should be tried and i hope that it doesn't come to this. Time will tell though.
  7. I’m not sure that I explained the point I was trying to get across well enough but it was essentially that if you have the majority of the people on your side then you win. In the case of the French they had a very clear majority of the people agreeing with each other that the monarchy was corrupt. Therefore they won. Once the public acted as one, the monarchy didn’t have a hope in hell of being able to control the situation. From what I see about the current situation there are still lots of people (generally middle class baby boomers) who are still doing pretty well and really can’t (or choose not to) understand why people are so upset. Most of them read only and believe totally the main stream press. These people can’t associate with violent protests although they can see injustices when they occur. Because of the number of people making up this group they are important. Both New Labour and Conservatives know this which is why the two parties are always vying for their vote. If these people are won over because they see how unjust the system has become then the system gets changed. I suppose it’s true to say that violence can sometimes be justified (e.g. to protect life) or to protect against injustice. My previous post was more about violent protests though rather than violence in general. I’m certainly not advocating doing nothing. I have nothing but contempt for what the government has done over the past decade. I’m generally quite a cautious person and like to fight battles I know I’m going to win and I’m not about to start to live on my knees. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread (Touche) I hope not. I've read many of your posts to date and have agree with virtually every one of them. So unless you are just much taller than me please don't!
  8. It’s you that doesn’t get it. With small and medium sized companies there is someone to point the finger at when bad decisions are made and things go wrong. There is responsibility and accountability. Within the world of globalised multinationals there is no accountability. I’m sure that Cassano is equally sure that what he did was for the greater good of the company, it wasn’t illegal after all. The problem seems to be that no one is responsible at least in the eyes of the government and the law. P.S. it was 'the good people’ (actually ‘the best people’) that created the mess that we are in.
  9. The state reacts to violent protests by whatever means it deems necessary to keep power, either greater violence or a few token law changes. The general public reacts to violent protests by demonising the protestors or at least being susceptible to their demonization through the media. If you think that you can change the state you are only being played by them. If you change the thinking of the majority of the population so that they believe in your message then you have done something useful. This is the method that the government uses and is why they are so keen to divide and conquer.
  10. I agree that it’s ridiculous that you and I can’t take a photograph of the police. I’m sure that 90% of the population would agree. Given the number of CCTV cameras silently and continuously breaking the law I can’t understand how they could justify it either. Still after Guantanamo Bay the government doesn’t seem to have to justify how it behaves. The only difference between the media and the population is that it’s much easier to control the media than the general population as is being shown today. The more you have to lose (work, operating licence etc) the more you will cooperate. The unfair nature of the laws seems to be the point of many of the protests that Gandhi carried out though. They were symbolic protests against unjust laws which were then stamped out with violence from the authorities (shock and awe). This then convinced the population ‘en masse’ that they had been wronged and then they just had to wait. Another protest that he might approve of would be a peaceful protest outside of the houses of parliament. It’s the people that have the power and he clearly convinced the majority of the population that it was the authorities that were in the wrong and it was he that was right. I don’t think that you can ever really get the moral high ground through violence. The problem with the violent approach many people are discussing is that it only distances the protestors from the target audience (the general population). The average family (who thinks) is angry with the government but would rather trust in them to sort out their own problems rather than opt for all out anarchy and public lynching.
  11. It was the English establishment that Gandhi was protesting against though. If it had only been Gandhi that had burnt his identification papers, he would have been arrested and probably never heard from again. But since 1000’s of identification papers were burnt I guess that there was less options available. Put them ALL in prison or just give them a slap on the wrist and ignore it. In this case what could any police force do about it?
  12. Gandhi was the pioneer of resistance to tyranny through mass civil disobedience. Someone mentioned that taking photos of the police is now illegal. I suppose what he would do then is organise peaceful demonstrations and make sure that everyone takes a camera and takes as many photos of the police as possible. The police would then be faced with either arresting tens of thousands of people and making themselves look like class A prats, or letting people get away with breaking the law.
  13. lol, a little ;-) As far as anecdotal evidence goes then what I see is the following; FTB are being wiped out. After years of saving to get on the housing ladder, now they are facing negative equity and collapsing house prices. Basically they seem to have been sh@fted on mass. Pensioners (I’m talking here about the ‘Silent Generation’) some of which fought for our country and generally weren’t responsible for the mess we are in today, are being directly affected since bank interest rates are now so low that they have to spend their capital bases (if the government has not already taken that). The BOE policy of letting inflation slowing creep up is penalising them further. From what I see Boomers are the least affected of any of the major groups in as much as they should have very low mortgages due to the massive rise in property values over the years. I really can’t see that anyone in this group should be complaining if house prices plummet since they should still be quid’s in. It would also give their kids a fair chance at getting on the property ladder without turning themselves into debt slaves. Going back to the original point then, I’m still not sure that I would agree that deflation is so catastrophic particularly if it was being created by lower house prices. i.e. negative RPI. Yes it would be hard for FTB’s, it’s a tough lesson but it would at least teach people to save and then spend rather than the other way around. It would penalise those people with more debt than they can service and reward savers. So long as the deflation was steady it would reward companies with low debt. In short I still don’t understand why it’s always dismissed out of hand with no explanation. It’s not ideal but then nothing about the current situation is.
  14. OK fair point about the source however you don’t seem to qualify your 90% / 10% ‘stats’ at all? Without some sort of qualification of where those figures come from you don’t seem to actually have an argument. If you have a source I would be interested to know. I can believe that some boomers are starting to struggle however as a generation they have seen house prices explode beyond imagination. If they have failed to accumulate a significant amount of equity when their house prices have shot up by approx 300% in 30 years then I don’t see why it’s down to me to bail them out. I don’t think that the vast majority of boomers will actually have a problem unless of course they have been in BTL or re-mortgaged recently. As a generation, because of their numbers boomers have had it pretty easy for most of their life and they are the one section of society that I personally feel least inclined to help out. Unfortunately for their kids, they are about to be picking up the tab. I still don’t follow your logic as to why deflation will be any more catastrophic than rewarding failure on a massive scale You sound like a reasonable person but you don’t seem to be quoting any sources for anything you are saying which makes it hard for me to take your arguments seriously.
  • 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.