Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Scooter

Members
  • Posts

    1,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Scooter

  1. Thats because you are stupid..

    Most western European nations have MORE immigrants than the UK..

    I getting tired of repeating myself so..

    From: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...mp;#entry370219

    Germany

    ======

    German 91.5%, Turkish 2.4%, other 6.1% (made up largely of Greek, Italian, Polish, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, Spanish)

    UK

    ==

    white (of which English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census).

    Netherlands

    ========

    Dutch 83%, other 17% (of which 9% are non-Western origin mainly Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and Indonesians) (1999 est.)

    Switzerland > 20% of residents are foreigners..

    France has similar numbers to the UK

    "Within Western Europe in 2000, migrant stocks as a percentage of the total population of key countries

    were the following: the United Kingdom (6.8 percent); France (10.6 percent); Germany (9 percent);

    Denmark (5.7 percent), Iceland (5.6 percent); Sweden (11.2 percent); Norway (6.7 percent); Italy (2.2

    percent); Netherlands (9.6 percent); Ireland (8.1 percent); Spain (3.2 percent); Portugal (2.3 percent);

    Austria (9.4 percent); Belgium (8.6 percent); and Switzerland (25.1 percent) (United Nations Population

    Division 2002). Although for most of countries listed here (save for Sweden and Switzerland), the

    percentage of migrants are not as high major migrant destinations like Australia, the United States, or

    Canada, these migrant stock levels are at (or approaching) historical peaks."

    Yes the Uk is one of the few countries which has allowed citizens of the new EU-countries the right to work/live here.. But that is pretty recent and still doesnt mean that the Uk has a higher overall proportion than most other European countries.

    http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...mp;#entry350484

    "Top 10 Negative Net Migrant Annual Flow (Annual Average 1995-2000)

    (-381,000) China

    (-340,000) Democratic Republic of the Congo

    (-310,000) Mexico

    (-280,000) India

    (-200,000) Kazakstan

    (-190,000) Philippines

    (-180,000) Indonesia

    (-100,000) Ukraine

    (-91,000) Iran

    (-80,000) Egypt and Burundi

    Top 10 Positive Net Migrant Annual Flow (Annual Average 1995-2000)

    (1,250,000) United States

    (395,000) Rwanda

    (287,000) Russia

    (185,000) Germany

    (144,000) Canada

    (118,000) Italy

    (103,000) Australia

    (100,000) Bosnia and Herzegovina

    (99,000) SAR Hong Kong

    (95,000) United Kingdom"

    http://www.yorku.ca/yciss/publications/WP2...tandGrayson.pdf

    For example, while

    the developed world was home to almost 60 percent of the world’s migrant stock in 2000, less developed

    regions absorbed 81 percent of the world’s refugees (UN Populations Division 2002). In 2000, Pakistan

    was host to 2,001,000 refugees and Iran 1,868,000. Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia have over 1,172,000

    refugees combined (UN Populations Division 2002). Rwanda has had the second largest average annual influx of migrants (395,000) in the world over the past five years (UN Populations Division 2002).

    Countries like Saudi Arabia (25.8 percent); Bahrain (39.8 percent); Qatar (72.4 percent); Kuwait (57.9

    percent); and the United Arab Emirates (73.8 percent) have large migrant stocks due to labour needswhich are filled by foreign guest workers from countries like India, Pakistan, and the Philippines (UN

    Populations Division 2002).

    .and many of them do have riots and unrest over immigration. France? Holland? Models of racial harmony... ;)

  2. Oh right. Where did he/she study?

    Not many universities carry the course that’s why I ask. There was only 2 people on the Maths with Astrophysics course I did back in 94’.

    He lectures/researches at a couple of London Uni colleges (you will know them as there are only a couple of places but I would prefer not to specify.)

  3. Yup. Have said this before. I have to also say these figures are real, and people really are leaving. All the people I know that left are all highly qualified, brains are leaving the UK. I decided to leave the UK 2 years after graduating. With my qualifications and same pay out here... i have a much nicer life style. I don't mind the tax as there is plenty left over for food/rent/ipods/social events and flights home! I get a good deal of travelling to cities around Europe too.. this is how youth should be spent, not shackled to a mortgage along with 2-3 strangers spending all your income on a loan that was used to line the pockets of greedy sellers. And in 3-4 years time i'll return to the UK in my early 30s with a healthy deposit ready to clear up on the crashed housing market. :)

    I was so stressed with jobs in London when I lived there... my money disappeared! Tax then GBP 250ish on travel per month (thats GBP 3000 a year! For a smelly vomit coverd train seat), Food + living costs, social life costs, student loan repayments blah blah blah... Inland Revenue suddenly deciding i was under taxed... blah blah blah... all of this really stressed me out.

    If you have the option, get out for a couple of years.

    ...but in return for our most qualified people leaving we get hundreds of thousands of uneducated immigrants from Africa and the Sub-Continent and yes Eastern Europe (yes I know not all are uneducated but the service industry and cosntruction is not thriving on the masses of cheap brain surgeons and astrophysicists coming to live here.)

    s.

  4. Do you blame muslims for today's traffic jam on the M1?

    Should muslims do more to tackle childhood obesity?

    What colour Hijab should muslims wear this season?

    Have you ever made love to a muslim? Tell us your experiences.

    Who is your favourite muslim? Tell us your views.

    Muslim or muslin? Which makes the best bread?

    yeah, I noticed the BBC always has to have a couple of Muslim threads going, not to mention a regular "How evil is Israel" one every week or so...

    S.

  5. Norwich Union has announced plans to increase insurance premiums by 17% and 40% for young male drivers.

    Excuse me but did my wage go up to pay for this. Did it go up to pay for extra council tax, did it go up to pay for extra gas and electricity prices. Did it go up to pay for the food and petrol price increases.

    But yet more people are getting bigger mortgages. Am I missing out on some secret government handout. Or am I the only person getting poorer and having to cut back to pay ever increasing bills.

    17% what happened to a couple of percent increases.

    Just because NU up their rates, it does not mean others necessarily will, even though they should if claims exceed premium and investment income. Most motor insurers are obsessed with market share and premium volume so they will happily steal NU customers who shop around. There is lots of competition.

    S.

  6. http://www.oldhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/2...om.html?rss=yes

    Does boom mean gloom?
    NEW national figures that show house prices in Oldham have rocketed by up to 21 per cent in value in the last year have been met with scepticism by local estate agents.
    The latest report from the Land Registry shows staggering increases across the borough, with the average price for a detached house bought between April and June this year being £242,700 – up from £200,447 for the same period in 2005.
    According to the report, the average house price in the borough soared 14.73 per cent to £115,223 last year, with the price of a semi detached increasing by 5.5 per cent to £135,028.
    Advertisement
    Terrace homes are also said to now cost an average of £85,874 – a substantial increase of 16.37 per cent.
    Flats and maisonettes also increased 14.86 per cent to an average price of £132,128.
    However, local estate agents claim the
    figures are distorted and dangerous for the market
    – creating the potential for gloom rather than boom.
    Richard Powell, partner at Ryder and Dutton, said: "If you look at the same house last year and then this year, there will be an increase, but only three to five per cent. New developments have created variations within each market.
    "If you take an older four-bedroom house and one from one of the new developments, both fall into the same sector but are not the same properties and have very different prices.
    "The statistics are not a true picture unless you look behind the reasons; redevelopment, helped by HMR in part and new development that has improved stock."
    Alan Kirkham of Alan Kirkham estate agents agreed.
    "It’s been a reasonable year, but we have not seen any massive rises. Oldham never has big peaks and troughs like other areas of the country. A stable market without any booms or slumps is the only good news," he claimed.

    IMO, this applies to the entire market. Distortions, spin and hype. The worm turns. :)

    Have you been to Oldham? It really is the a_rse end of Manchester and the world for that matter. Jobs and racial harmony are not that common. Who would willingly live there never mind pay extortionate prices for the priveledge?

    S.

  7. My point was that both are a breach of international law if they exist. The Israeli nuclear program is generally accepted and this is just as illegal of the Iranian program if that is proven to exist. You can't pick and choose which countries are bound by international law because it makes a mockery of the whole thing. IF the US doesn't want to rely on International Law and the UN any more and just wants to impose its own form of rule on other countries using its status as (currently) the world's only superpower then at least that would be a consistent (if morally reprehensible) approach. What sticks in my throat is the way the US jumps up and down about Iran complying with treaty obligations and UN resolutions when it conveniently ignores Israel's breaches

    Israel never signed any non-proliferation treaty and has broken nothing. However the far more fundamental point (to me at least) is that Israel is surrounded by countries that woudl like to see it disappear, unlike any other place in the world, but would never attack with nuclear weapons unless its existence was at risk. Iran, to listen to its leaders, would like to see Israel and potentially the US wiped off the map. I was not joking about the Mahdi-Ahmanidejad possibly wants to bring about the apocalpyse so that the mythical Shia leader will return. This is as dangerous as the Chrsitian end of days/Armageddon nonsense except no Christians are actually aiming to speed it up a little (I know you are tempted but please don't tell me Bush wants Armageddon-leave that ****** for tacoma or Mr Blek.)

    S.

    What about inclusivity instead of "them and us"? What about tolerance instead of "you're either for us or against is"? What about compassion instead of "devil take the hindmost"? What about showing a little faith in the goodness of man instead of accepting "there's always somebody out to get you"?

    For a "christian" you sure have a pretty poor understanding of humanity, but then again, if truth be told, christianity is not about humanity is it? It's really about the same thing as any other religion: devision and exclusivity and control.

    That gave me a laugh-you are contemptuous of anyone differing from your view (be it houses, stock markets or the Middle East.) Was that "inclusivity" bit written with a straight face? Scum.

  8. http://www.housefund.co.uk/2006/08/house-p...at-in-2007.html

    House prices likely to retreat in 2007

    A Reuters poll has suggested that property will cool off later this year and into next, thanks to with rising interest rates and overvalued property.
    The poll of 29 economists and property analysts reports that house price growth will slow to 3.5 percent in 2007. That's down from forecasts of 6% - 9% for 2006.
    7 of 22 questioned told Reutersthat the market was overvalued.
    It appears that with interest rates going up, house prices will go down. Gavin Redknap, UK economist at Standard Chartered told Reuters: "The key factor is mortgage rates, and the fact they have risen substantially will start to have an effect on the housing market in a pretty short period of time."
    But he added that there is still some momentum in the market.
    John Butler, economist at HSBC said: "Interest rates have risen, are likely to rise a bit further, and most of that, if not all of that has been passed on by banks at a time when unemployment is rising and real income growth is being squeezed."
    "That is a
    bad mix
    for the housing market and .... there is a bigger chance now that we get a correction in 2007 than there was the last time interest rates were rising."

    Things should get very interesting as Winter begins to set in. :o *

    ______________________

    * :D

    Only 7 out of 22 said property was overvalued? 70% think its about right then? Barking...

  9. Would you mind explaining the difference between Iran's suspected secret Nuke program and Israel's known secret Nuke program?

    If the difference between a democracy routinely threatened with destruction by its neighbours and an apocalyptic theocracy is not obvious to you, there is no point in an answer. Apparently the Madhi is coming back dumbfeck-just ask Ahmeninejad.

    S.

  10. Unfortunately, the US is the captive economic audience given its rate of consumption of the world's production. When the US stop buying from the rest of the world recession is the inevitable result. Its the customer that's going down here not the seller. The UK is heavily dependent on US consumption given our status as the No. 2 trading partner next to the EU. Germany are going to feel it also as they are the world's 4th largest exporter and most of their goods end(ed) up in the US.

    Why will no one actually write this stuff (bubble popping) about the Uk market in its own right? :angry:

  11. Analysis

    The Times August 29, 2006

    Housing bubble is finally at bursting point

    American View with Gerard Baker

    THE thing with bubbles, to paraphrase Joni Mitchell, is that you don’t really know you’ve got one till it’s gone.

    When the air is expanding inside a speculative balloon, stretching the film of credibility that contains it to an ever-more improbable thinness, you can always find someone to explain why this time it’s different — why technological/demographic/astrological factors justify valuations today that have always proved historically unsupportable.

    Until the bubble actually starts to deflate or burst, there’s just enough doubt about whether prices really will revert to their historical mean to keep us all guessing. Even the most convinced sceptic can never say with any certainty when a bubble will collapse, and so the science of identifying bubbles is an inherently retrospective activity.

    But it looks now as though we can say with some confidence that the long American housing bubble is over.

    To the anecdotal evidence accumulating over the past year — estate agents cancelling holidays in the South Pacific, the houseowner around the corner who is said to have dropped her asking price three times — we now have some firm and depressingly clear data. Last week we learnt that existing home sales in July were 11 per cent below last year’s levels. Within a couple of days, the next report said that new home sales had fallen in the same month by 21 per cent from a year earlier. Just a week before that, it was reported that housing starts fell 13 per cent from a year earlier.

    If the housing market really is in retreat, the two important questions are: how far will it fall, and how much damage will it do to the US and, by extension, the world economy? It is not an exaggeration to say that the buoyant US economy has been kept afloat in the past five years by its housing sector. The first and most obvious effect has been the direct contribution a booming real estate market has had on employment and income.

    If you dissect the official employment data over the past five years, and lump all the housing-related stuff together — construction, estate agents, mortgage broking, home improvement, housing insurance investment — you get some staggering numbers.

    By some estimates all this housing activity has accounted for more than 40 per cent of all the jobs created in the US since 2001. Now, all these new jobs are not going to disappear in a housing slump. But even if residential real estate activity falls by half in the next year or two it will represent a sizeable blow to the labour market that could, if there is nothing else to take up the slack, push unemployment significantly higher, and income somewhat lower.

    The much bigger effect of a housing slump, however, is likely to be on household balance sheets. According to the Federal Reserve’s latest figures, the total amount of residential housing wealth in the US just about doubled between 1999 and the first quarter of 2006 — up from $10.4 trillion (£5,500 billion) to $20.4 trillion.

    Thanks to a highly efficient housing finance market, Americans have been withdrawing a significant part of this wealth to finance current spending. Exactly how much they have withdrawn is hard to gauge, but the wealth effect of housing on spending has been observed to be substantially larger than traditional estimates of the wealth effect of equities, which is about 1.5 per cent. If the right figure for housing is 3 per cent, that suggests over $300 billion has been taken out in the past six years, about $50 billion a year, or an average of about 0.4 per cent of US GDP. This seems a conservative estimate, as some economists put the wealth effect much higher.

    However, people do not join a wave of selling when prices fall: most simply sit tight. Furthermore, the US market is a vast, diversified one, nothing like as dominated by a single, frothy urban market in the way the UK is affected by London. Prices nationwide have in fact never fallen in any year in the last half century.

    But even if prices stay flat on aggregate over the next few years, that still suggests a substantial hit to GDP and, given the run-up in prices in the past five years, the chances of an outright, first-ever decline in prices must be substantial.

    The other large effect of a housing slump might be considered a non-linear one: the impact on financial conditions of the millions of Americans who will default on mortgage payments as prices flatten, interest rates rise and the economy stalls.

    In previous periods of weakness in property markets there have been huge institutional collapses. The savings and loans debacle of the early 1990s is the most recent example. Today, again thanks to increased financial efficiency, the risk of such a massacre seems smaller. The securitisation of the nation’s mortgage market has spread the geographical and sectoral risks to the broader economy.

    But there will still be many financial institutions with significantly impaired balance sheets as the value of their mortgage-backed securities declines sharply over the next year. All in all, even on the most optimistic assumptions, post-bubble conditions in the housing market would be highly uncomfortable for America and could seriously sap demand in the world.

    Of course, that is what the pessimists said about the collapse of the tech bubble in 2000. But back then, like a guardian angel, along came the housing boom just in time.

    Is there anything that might do the same for the US in the next few years? There’s not much room for fiscal support. Unfortunately, and though interest rates have edged lower in the past few weeks, inflation pressures may limit the potential for support there. A further decline in oil prices would be useful, but can hardly be counted on. Which may leave the US in the unaccustomed position of hoping that the rest of the world can come to its rescue with a period of really strong demand growth. Who would bet the house on that?

  12. My local council flies the Pakistani flag instead of the union flag on Pakistani independence day.

    Am I the only one who finds this vaguely creepy?

    I mean, we have a large Jewish population, Poles, Irish, Ukranian. Why show preferential treatment to the Pakistanis?

    I wonder if it's just self flagellating white multiculti twits or whether the Pakistani population actually demanded it.

    Very, very creepy. If it is a Labour constituency with a potentially hostile Muslim population (i.e. hostile to Labour policies) Jack Straw, who is evry vulnerable, and others will sell the UK down the river to try to protect their seats.

    S.

  13. Boris Johnson is a buffoon. He was brilliant on 'Have I Got News..' and should stay there because half the fun of the programme is to take the p|$$ out of the chairman. No-one is more suitable to be made a fool of than Boris.

    As to his opinions, even if I had proof positive that every word he uttered was true, I would still go round to my psychatrist to check whether I had lost my marbles.

    Brilliant court jester - he is. Serious political commentator - he is not.

    p

    The NuLab monkey pops up again to defend its masters! :rolleyes:

  14. I think we need to be careful when defining this whole integration issue. I’ve been to area’s in Manchester where there are predominantly Jewish people. They keep themselves to themselves and as far as I can tell haven’t caused any disruption. Some people on here would have them dejected for not integrating. People in any society will segregate based on common traits and interests. I for instance go out with people I enjoy the company of, which may or may not be the same people as you or the next guy. This doesn’t mean we’re not willing to integrate into society.

    Let’s face it the real issue here isn’t about integration or even the ethnics going out and getting a tattoo of the union jack on the forehead or even the ethnics supporting the England football team. It’s about dealing with the extremist hatred that exists on both the extremist sides. On the one side you have the minorities (from what we have seen over the last few years, this usually means a very, very few Muslims) that hate the Brits and everything that the ‘Westerners’ stand for, yet hypocritically live here in that way of life. On the other side you have the racists that can’t see anything other than colour. These are the same people that judge people based on their colour (whether it be brown, black, yellow or pink with polka dots) – The kind of idiots that would see a brown person and think ‘terrorist’.

    To answer your question about how we stop these individuals (and let’s remember that we’re talking about a very small percentage of the whole population here). Well I personally would like to put them all (both extremists and also all criminals) onto a small island with no tools and lot’s of ocean in all directions and let them sort themselves out. The rest of the ‘normal’ world would be a better place for it! – However, this isn’t going to happen and I really don’t envy the government as they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

    I tend to agree with all of that. Jews are not about to blow themselves up on a Manchester train or bus. Every Jewish service in a synagogue in the UK includes a prayer for the safety and wisdom of the Royal Family and government. This is traditional everywhere-I even saw an old US prayerbook that had a prayer for the Confederacy but the point is that submission to and support-in the sense of not attacking or trying to overthrow it even if you happen to disagree with specific policies-the government of the host country is absolute.

    S.

  15. Exactly the same? <_<

    Comparing a modern, prosperous, democratic country to a regime which killed 20 million of its own citizens in the gulag, allowed other citizens to starve, and punished dissent with a long prison sentence at best (and a summary execution in the bowels of the lubyanka at worst) is actually quite offensive.

    As I've tried to say many times on this site, try not to be so hysterical <_<

    The use of faked or manipulated targets and a self-congratulatory pat on the back for achieving them-and attacks on anyone who questions their veracity- is similar, not the overall picture.

  16. The Times August 25, 2006

    Public view of inflation fuels fear of a rate rise

    By Gary Duncan, Economics Editor

    STRONG evidence that soaring fuel and utility bills are leading households to expect higher inflation in the future has increased the threat of another imminent rise in interest rates.

    Expectations of future levels of inflation among the public have leapt over the past month, climbing back to highs set earlier this year, an influential poll from Citigroup revealed yesterday.

    The average level of inflation expected by consumers in the coming year jumped in August to 2.5 per cent, from 2.1 per cent in July, Citgroup’s survey said.

    The research also showed that the proportion of people expecting inflation to be below the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target in the year ahead fell this month to just 36 per cent, from 45 per cent in July.

    At the same time. the proportion of people who think that inflation will exceed 4 per cent has soared to a fifth, from 15 per cent in July.

    The surge in so-called inflation expectations will set alarm bells ringing again at the Bank.

    The Governor of the Bank, Mervyn King, and members of its Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) have emphasised their view that it is crucial that such a trend does not develop as a result of soaring energy costs.

    The Bank’s fear is that if people and companies come to predict that prices will rise far faster than the Bank’s 2 per cent target, this will in turn stoke-up pay demands, lead to higher wage deals, and in turn prompt companies to raise their prices further. This could trigger a “wage-price spiral” that would entrench rising inflation in the economy.

    With the MPC attaching great weight to ensuring that people believe that its inflation target will be met, economists have sounded warnings that any sign of increased inflation expectations may well be met by further increases in interest rates to reinforce the target’s credibility.

    Anxiety at the Bank over the risk that this is now happening will be fuelled by other findings in the Citigroup poll. It showed that average expectations of future inflation over the longer term also leapt this month, to 3.6 per cent, from 3.3 per cent in July. Four times as many people expect long-term inflation to be above the 2 per cent target than expect it to be below this level. Almost half of those polled think that long-term inflation will exceed 4 per cent.

    Michael Saunders, the chief UK economist for Citigroup, said: “These readings are bound to worry the MPC. If they believe that inflation expectations are being destabilised . . . they will see a greater need to hike rates further, perhaps significantly, to demonstrate their commitment to the inflation target.”

  17. I must admit that none of these names means anything to me; I don't know about anyone else on here. Is anyone other than DoobyDoo impressed by the 'Sirs', 'Profs.' 'Baronesses'? I'm certainly not.

    You really do need to address issues, rather than flinging puerile insults, Doobydoo. You'll feel a lot more grown up. Just imagine how impressed your mates at the BNP meeting will be when they realise that you you can do the goosestep with the best of them but also can put together an almost understandable argument.

    p

    Looks like the puerile insults are coming from you. Should we be thanking you for NuLab thought control (not to mention speech and press/media censorship and BBC brainwashing that we are forced to pay for)?

  18. The Iranian leadership is a real and scary threat to us and will need dealing with sooner or later, preferably sooner. They should try negotiation , but if it doesn't work, military force may well be needed.

    "Negotiation" has worked very well for the Iranians. They keep turning down offers of incentives to stop enriching and researching and in return receive far better offers and more time. This is pure appeasement by the UN/EU 1936 style. But it will come to an end eventually. I do not see a peaceful conclusion to this all.

    S.

  19. My research into Iranian history leads me to believe they havn't invaded anywhere since 1738, the idea that Iran is going to invade anywhere in the intermediate future only exists in the fevered imaginging of neocons who are desparate to come up with any excuse the can so they can attack Iran. The Iranians have signed the non-poliforation treaty, and the Iranian President has layed down a fatwa (religious order) that there be no Iran nukes. The so called threat from Iran seems to be as real as Iraq's WMDs.

    http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/iran_history.asp

    Blah blah blah, lets invade everywhere :blink:. After they have done that in their imagings they plan to take care of China then Russia, and how they suppose they're going to take on Russia after the Chinese have killed them all is anyones guess.

    Does threatening to wipe Israel off the map count (I know it is not technically invasion but it is a massively aggressive aim/intention outside their own borders)? Oh no, just another neocon fantasy, he was misquoted obviously...if everyone is as complacent as you about Iran and its nuclear programme, including missiles that can hit western Europe, we will all be dead sooner or later. Bizarre what some people believe but it is a free country (unlike Iran.)

    S.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information