Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Harry Sacks

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Harry Sacks

  1. I saw this a while ago. It's funny how as a society we celebrate this stuff. Imagine what would happen if the guys who keep the sewers clear and collect our rubbish downed tools for a few days.

    Edit, to say I've just noticed the much celebrated British entrepreneur in the ad on the right of this thread. How ironic that he grew up to be a tax looting parasite.

  2. I would advise, at least, listening to the entire Renegade Inc interview in full.

    On appeal, Carlin says the case was "struck out" in his favor on the grounds that the bank had initially lied by saying the mortgage had not been securitised. Carlin presented evidence to the contrary, obtained under the FIA, which proved his mortgage account had been settled, in full, by a third party. 

    Apparently, Carlin then went on the offensive and compelled the judge to request evidence of the loan from Santander using primary legislation - 1871 bankers book of evidence. The judge adjourned the case for three months before the next hearing when he then ruled in the bank's favor. Carlin then attempted to arrest the judge on five separate allegations.

    What happened then is rather suspect. Carlin was arrested for assault. He was taken to custody suite but not interviewed by the police but by the police ombudsmen instead. He claims they did this as there would be no obligation to investigate his own claims. The judge that Carlin attempted to arrests actually tried Carlin in the trial that followed an jailed him for three months.

    Make of it what you will but please don't jump to conclusions without looking at what is being presented.

    Full interview


    It's worth noting that the case, Santander vs Carlin, is ongoing.

  3. 2 hours ago, TryingToWin said:

    The British barely have replacement birth rates.

    If Britain contained only British for the last 50 years every 2 parents would leave an average of 2 children their inheritance.

    Wealth inequality would not be a thing. House prices would remain stable or even decrease as the population stayed the same but houses continued to be built.



    The official net migration figures are over 2million every 5 years. The houses built are less than 700,000 every 5 years. an extra 1.3million people competing for housing every 5 years.

    The unofficial NI numbers add an extra 1.2million NI numbers every 5 years.

    3.3million People competing for 700,000 Houses .. EVERY 5 Years

    Since the financial crash 6.6million extra people competing for 1.4million homes.



    5million people on housing benefit receiving an average of £500 per MONTH. Over 50% SINGLE MOTHERS.

    150 BILLION total spent on benefits - 50% of the population on some sort of state benefit - An average of £5000 per citizen per YEAR.


    Our own wages are subsidizing the same people we are competing with for housing to the tune of £500 a month and people think interest rates increasing the mortgage costs by £50 is gunna change anything. How naïve.

    stop the immigration of people with no savings. stop the housing benefit. It all goes away within a generation.

    That was interesting reading. I had no idea it was that severe.

  4. The BoE are only interested in keeping money tied up in assets. Which is why, up to now, with all the QE around the place, there hasn't been a whiff of inflation in anything other than assets. It's a rentiers paradise. Any surplus goes into housing cost, directly, or indirectly into share buy backs and off shore investments. Daylight robbery. The looting continues.

    I bet the MPC are scratching their heads over this.


  5. 2 hours ago, Cryptotrader said:

    So, just a hunch, then.

    I think it (UBI) would usher in a new era of high productivity growth. People wouldn't need to work stupidly long hours in jobs that should be automated anyway, they would do work they wanted to do which would increase productivity. People who can't or won't work will not see much change in disposable income. People with lucrative businesses or highly paid jobs would probably see a negative impact to their disposable income. UBI would lead to British society aligning more with the Germanic & Scandinavian models and away from the disastrous US model.

    Of course Tories would hate this as they are driven to derive their sense of importance and superiority from people who remain unfulfilled or are down on their luck.

    Show me an economic theory or policy that isn't based on a "hunch".

    We've kind of had this already with tax credits and the self employed. 

    I'm certain UBI would end up inflating assets through leverage, cancelling itself out in a few years. The Germans have a totally different banking system to us. Most communities are served by small, local banks of which there are over 1500. We're worlds apart in that respect.

  6. 13 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:


    UBI would just be inflationary and we don't need more inflation. The answer, I believe, is to prevent central banks from being able to manipulate the monetary system. If this can't be done then, yes, a new system is needed. I'm not sure what it would be though.

    However, if it wasn't for the rentier land system we have then there wouldn't be the incentive to borrow huge amounts of money to buy land and housing. There is probably a lot that can be done in this area.

    Paying people not to work is as bad an idea as manipulating the monetary system to inflate asset prices.

    Yes, my own opinion is moving in that way. If window guidance was in the direction of productive assets instead, this could be deflationary as production efficiencies increased. Add a "green ethic" into the mix and we might see change for the better..

  7. On 28/09/2018 at 11:09, Captain Kirk said:

    But aren't these just IOUs from the BoE?

    Yes, they are THE promissory note. The 97.5% is issued AGAINST promissory notes, approx 60% of which are called mortgages. When you take out a mortgage you are selling the bank a financial instrument, a bond. You are paid with numbers that are entered into your account. That money didn't exist before, and will cease to exist when repaid.

  8. 10 minutes ago, mrtickle said:


    Unless you CANNOT work full time (and having children isn't an excuse; being disabled or a carer is a good reason), you should NOT be getting any top-up benefits at all. I know people do now, and I don't agree it's correct.

    Benefits should only be paid to people who have health/disability issues, or those looking for work. Once you are in full time work, there shouldn't be benefits. The money needs to come from the wages, NOT the taxpayer.


    The fight against living wages has been going on nearly 40 years now. The investment class don't want them, it spoils their capital returns. Post war welfare capitalism was so successful it had to be usurped with manufactured crisis in many developed nations.

    The boomer generation got the best of both worlds, assets paid for by inflation and real capital gains just in time for retirement.

  9. 49 minutes ago, spyguy said:

    Bit complex.

    Banks capital needs to be risk bearing. And it needs to be in proportion to their loans and riskyness ofte loans.

    The most insane thing was there was a dry rn of 2007 when Abbey National came unstcuk in 2000ish. There, ratehr than going for deposits, bonds  and the like, Abbey National had took on a load of commrcail leases, aricraft mainyl if I remember. Then when it hit turbulence, they could not get a clear value on their value and were not liquid. This is where Luqman Arnold and his dpeuty, Stephen Hester made their name and money - going through loads of crap secutiries, trying to extra cash from.



    'According to Morgan Stanley Research cited by the Treasury select committee, in 2007 the average loan-to-deposit ratio of UK banks was 137 per cent. But for Northern Rock, it was 322 per cent, almost two times that of HBOS, which also later collapsed.'





    If you want to get really simplistic, it could be said that banking is about taking value from the future and bringing it into the present. This system works until the present surplus can no longer sustain the burden.

  10. On 21/09/2018 at 06:56, spyguy said:

    No. Its fractonal reserve banking. The BoE actually has some good intro papers. Google.

    Bank makes a loan, say 100k. Depending on how the loan is classed, the bank will have to retain some capital - say 5k.

    The central banks than puts 95k on the banks account and the retial bank gives it to the customer.

    Customer pays off loan, bank pays back central bank.

    Central bank sets base rates to control money in economy. High rates suck cash out of the economy.

    Retail bank charges customer the cost of the money plus extra. The banks compete to keep the extra low. Extra would be cost fo bad debt, bank premises, employees. Idea is the more efficient banks have lower costs so get more of the business.

    Whats goes wrong?

    If he long goes bad then the lendingbank is in shit. That 5k goes if the bank has to spend 10k repoing and only gets 80k for the house with 100k mortgage.

    What went wrong 2000 - onwards?

    Lending standards - FRB only works if the person pays he loan back.  To guarantee that, you need the old building society lending model - save for 10% deposit, lend at 3 + 1 wages.

    Capital requirements on housing was way too low. People are suggesting it needs to be 20-30%. This would be equity i,e risk bearing.

    Securisation for funding - did not work like it said onthe tin. Securitisation trapped bank capital and started costing a fortune, mainly for the above reasons.

    Regulated banks need to be run like utilities (not uk ones ffs) . They are not profit maximising entities - the leverage is too high and will be wiped out quickly.





    The banks capital can be cash or is usually cash equivalents - anything AAA rated, dodgy MBS for example. What was happening 2000+, banks where accessing the repo market for funding, rather than the CB. Swapping securities with corporations who were sitting on piles of cash. The ratings agencies were complicit in triple A  rating the securities used in these transactions. When the SHTF the CBs had to take the place of the repo market, recapitalising the banks by purchasing these securities of unknown value.

    It's worth remembering that there was a global shortage of AAA securities at the turn of the century. IMO that was the main driver for this bubble.


  11. 3 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

    Thanks. Completely agree with you! Hope you didn't have to stay there for too long.

    The 3 months' rent up-front will be banned by the tenants fee bill.


    The LL was a retired estate/letting agent! She knew the score, told me that because I was self-employed, not rented since 1992, no refs, etc, that no agent would touch me. She knew I was desperate, the other bedroom was for my 12yo daughter, and she took advantage.

    One of the other dumps I looked at was a one bed terrace cottage with asbestos roof. The front door opened against the ******ing kitchen. My head touched the ceiling upstairs. I thought it was some kind of practical joke. The previous tenant said the key meter would rinse him of £1 when he had a shower.

  12. 18 minutes ago, mrtickle said:

    What happened next? Where did you go? Presumably you found a better agent?


    I saw a card in the PO window for a two bed flat. The card was ominously sun bleached. The flat was above a chip shop and next to a convenience stove, probably the reason it had been vacant for so long. Even so, the LL wanted 3 months up front. The opportunity for sleep was between the pubs kicking out and the shop deliveries starting at 2am. There were issues with the bodged plumbing and other stuff, all of which I fixed myself. When i moved out the LL quibbled about a stain on the carpet (there when I moved in), the cleanliness of the cheapest, barely functional electric oven (which I cleaned) and a tear in the shitty kitchen lino which wasn't even bonded to the chipboard floor. During my tenancy the sash windows wouldn't close properly because the latches were broken. I had offered to fit new ones if she could provide them, that never happened. After all of this I came to the conclusion that all these money-for-nothing rent seekers are of no use to society, (in fact they are the net drain, externalising the cost of their existence) and really need to be careful. I wouldn't be surprised if we see some kind of organised hate in their direction.

    Edit: to add, this was by far the best place of the few available for the money.

  13. Last year I had rent a place for six months after being out of the rental market since 1992. I'm also self-employed which didn't help. Basically no one in my area would rent outside of an agent because of the income insurance they offer if the tenant goes bad. I couldn't believe the shit I was viewing. Damp, filthy places with black mold and carpets from the 70s. One shit hole even had a fridge full of food the last tenant left, the electric was off because the key meter had run out, the place was full of flies. I totally lost my shit with the agent and told him to get ******ed after that.


  • 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.