Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HPC001

  1. Well that's nice that your company\yourself work that way, I did use "mostly" for a reason. I'm taking it that you have above the ~7 years experience I am commenting with? I haven't worked in management myself so I'd be interested to hear your take. Best seems to consist of who can bulls***t their way through selection interviews. I chose my course largely based on the format, content, and tutors that I spoke to. Anyway, grades aren't everything. Exams are a long way from the actual work environment. Getting a 1st is useless if you can't apply the skills\knowledge in the real world.
  2. Translation: you prefer soundbites and catchphrases. Land is fixed in quantity, and has no cost of production. Cars and drills have a cost of production and aren't fixed in quantity.
  3. Would it make any difference if I bought more books instead? Would that be a luxury? Not that the few quid I do spend makes a huge difference, but with the margins of most of the sellers I purchased from... I get the impression you would only be happy if I had lived in prison-style accomodation with supervised jobsearches. I tried to do something useful when it become apparent that work was not to be had in the short term, and that also gets flak. Seems I'm wasting my time explaining this. Like I said, I doubt that most of the luxuries the benefit "scroungers" have were purchased with their actual benefits. Does that include people who work and also claim benefits? Including the propping up of their asset values and mortgage interest payments to unemployed homeowners? We cannot afford landlordism, corporatism, parasitic financial institutions and a leadership that doesn't serve the public. By your logic, we should cull the elderly because they produce nothing and will only become an increasing drain as the demographic shift continues.
  4. Drugs - I presume you mean coke\dope etc. In which case no. Games - yes, but then if I buy any it's for 2-3 quid off ebay once in a while. Generally I don't purchase any other form of entertainment, so I consider it reasonable to enjoy them. Phone - nope, it's worth about £10. Doesn't do anything other than the basics - voice\text\pictures. Beer - I'm teetotal. Fags - Ugh, filthy things. Hate the stuff. Perhaps ironic that most of the above have gotten cheaper in real terms than pretty much everything else...
  5. The number of contract and part-time jobs has soared relative to full-time work advertised. Nobody is able or wanting to take the risk of hiring permanent full-time employees on any significant scale.
  6. The complexities of the system (8,000 pages of guidance) no doubt magnify the number of mistakes, and IIRC the government issued more NINOs than there were actual registered adults. Still the official figure for fraud was a paltry £2 billion, which in the grand scheme of things is small. JCP itself, and its staff cost £4 billion. The dole is about £2 billion. Most of the social protection budget is care services and pension payments. The deficit is what, £175 billion now? You get 6 months of contribution based dole without too many questions. The rest is income-based. The govt's continued obsession with means-testing, and the lumping of most taxation on the middle\working classes hardly incentivised working. I don't enjoy being taxed to the hilt either. I've argued on here for alternate systems already. I didn't, because that depends entirely on what the landlord is charging. Or whether they accept it. In any case, withdrawing HB alone won't solve the problem of rents swallowing most of the working person's income. I've had this discussion in numerous threads and do not intend to repeat it here.
  7. Employers don't want to train people who are unqualified for the most part. I'm too old and experienced for an apprenticeship or "intern" post now. I chose my own course carefully and only after spending 9 months unable to secure employment\apprenticeships. The vocational nature and the certifications thrown in on top were the clincher, otherwise I probably would have picked Compsci at an Imperial-esque institution. Plus the tutors were ex-industry themselves - ironically the course leader had worked in the banking industry just before the crash. You could say the same about needing MCPs for a helpdesk job, NVQ for childcare\social care, H&S\HC for kitchen jobs. Every job these days has some piece of paper associated with it. Since it takes money to make money, and one doesn't usually have it to start with, borrowing is the only option. Again going back to the middle class example, unlike me, they have a fall back option so they can take a risk I wouldn't consider.
  8. An hour of saying "no" to their various questions about having property\real estate, shares, a pension etc was mildly amusing I suppose.
  9. Jobs are gotten mostly via contacts and not merit. Admittedly I don't know enough about ICL to say whether it's worth the £9k. However, from the point of view of a middle class kid with parental backing it may well be, given the potential for networking.
  10. I suspect most are working under the table or getting themselves into debt. Either that or they are the rare case with 6+ kids, but that's a statistical rarity when the birthrate nationally is less than 2. Last time I was officially registered unemployed, I was not living the life of Riley on £50 per week, and the jobcentre staff would hassle me over being so much as a few minutes late to any appointment\signing. Given that at the time I lived nowhere near the nearest JCP and village bus services suck, I would often be spending an hour plus to go there and back for 5 minutes worth of discussion before the queue had to dealt with. I don't know where you are, but landlords around here will not take HB - there is a high chance of you becoming homeless if you were to lose your job. With ever increasing rents and stagnating wages, saving is difficult. I cannot fathom how being unemployed and on the dole is better than earning even £12k, never mind £35k. Perhaps you feel you are innately superior, ccc? Or are you afraid of falling into the same situation?
  11. What I'm saying is it only takes a set number to provide the basics, everything else is distribution and luxuries. I should clarify I wasn't referring to self-employment or living off the land.
  12. Productivity has skyrocketed, in large part thanks to labour saving devices. However, labour hasn't seen the benefit of this, in part due to usurious interest and land speculation. But even in an ideal situation, there will still be a lot of people without a job due to technology advancement (and full employment isn't realistic anyway). Hence per-capita citizens dividends. Mass purchasing power has to exist or mass production is unviable. Unless of course you're one of those malthusian types...
  13. What does that have to with fractional lending? Are you going to actually explain what your disagreement is, or *shock horror* reference something yourself? "The Wahoo bank has acquired an interest-earning asset (the promissory note which it files under 'Loans') and has created demand deposits (a liability) to 'pay' for this asset. Grisley has swapped an IOU for the right to draw an additional $50,000 worth of checks against its demand deposit in the Wahoo bank....All this looks simple enough. But a close examination of the Wahoo bank's balance statement will reveal a startling fact: When a bank makes loans, it creates money. The president of Grisley went to the bank with something which is not money--her IOU--and walked out with something that is money--a demand deposit....By extending credit the Wahoo bank has 'monetized' an IOU....If commercial banks create demand deposits--money--when they make loans, is money destroyed when loans are repaid? Yes." -- Campbell R. McConnell & Stanley L. Brue, Economics, 14th ed., pp. 294-5 "The bulk of the money in the U.S. economy is checkable deposits of commercial banks and thrifts, not currency." -- Ibid., p. 287 "Banks are unique among financial intermediaries in that only they can create money. When banks make loans, they put the proceeds of such loans in the borrowers' checking accounts. Insofar as demand deposits are part of the money supply, these newly created deposits constitute 'new money' that did not exist before." -- Roy J. Ruffin & Paul R. Gregory, Principles of Economics, 7th ed., p. 549 "When a commercial bank makes a loan to a business or an individual, it credits the checking account of that business or person with the amount loaned....Banks manufacture money through this loan process because they create money by monetizing debt." -- The Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 11th ed., p. 100 "In the course of their lending activity, banks create money." -- Marcia Stigum, The Money Market, 3rd ed., p. 17 I suppose you're going to tell me all of the authors are lying through their teeth next.
  14. Don't forget the corporate element. Sports are awash with sponsor logos for a reason.
  15. Shouldn't we be asking the banks to remove the money from their books then, and burning our £20 notes if that is the case?
  16. If too much money is the problem, why don't we start burning our notes for warmth? The quote above nails it: speculation is driving inflation. Genuine price discovery is almost impossible in our contorted market.
  17. Inflation seems to be a very misunderstood phenomenon. If over the course of a given year, both the adult population and economic output increase 3%, and the money supply increases only 1%, then that 1% increase will be deflationary, not inflationary. If the expansion rate of the money supply merely keeps pace with population growth and economic output, then (all else being equal) there is neither inflation nor deflation. It's only when money creation dramatically outpaces economic growth that you have inflation, and even then only if there isn't an offsetting decrease in money velocity such as we've seen over the last year due to plummeting consumer confidence. And the above applies merely to "demand-pull" inflation. What almost never gets talked about is cost-push inflation; and even when it is talked about, virtually no one ever mentions the primary causative roles that are played by (1) compound interest and (2) land speculation. For a more exhaustive explanation, I'll quote "Debt Virus": 'Current economic teaching explains that a general rise in prices can occur for different reasons. Over the years, economists have defined three different types of inflation: * demand-pull inflation * cost-push inflation * structural inflation Demand-pull inflation occurs when too many dollars chase too few goods; thus demand-pull inflation concentrates on the "too many dollars" side of the inflation equation. Conventional economists claim that demand-pull inflation occurs when the amount of money increases more rapidly than the supply of such goods and services. This excess money, the theory states, causes prices to be bid up--thus demand "pulls" up the general level of prices. Cost-push inflation concentrates on the "too few goods" side of the inflation equation. Cost-push inflation occurs, according to the followers of this theory, when autonomous increases in production costs or disruption in supplies cause firms to restrain their delivery of goods and services into the marketplace at prevailing prices, again, causing prices to bid up. As previously noted, prices are constantly changing in a dynamic economy. Some prices are rising while others are falling. When rising prices dominate, the general level of prices increases. Bottlenecks in the economy, say economists, may cause the prices of certain critical goods--steel or oil, for example, or precision drilling machines--to be bid up. In one part of the economy, specific bottlenecks may cause certain prices to rise, while in other parts of the economy surpluses may develop. These surpluses cause some specific prices to fall, theorists assert, and price hikes in the "bottleneck" sectors are moderated by price declines in other sectors. Thus, structural inflation occurs when prices in some areas do not fall as readily as prices rise in the "bottleneck" sector, resulting in a general upward creep in prices.... Now let us look critically at demand-pull inflation, the condition of "too many dollars chasing too few goods,...thus bidding up prices." Ruffin and Gregory have this to say about fiat money: "Governments have a monopoly over the issue of fiat money," and "The most important example of fiat money in the United States is paper currency called Federal Reserve Notes issued by the Federal Reserve System, rather than the United States Treasury." Here are two contradictory statements. The first states that government has a monopoly over the issuance of fiat money, and the second informs us that the U.S. Treasury does not issue fiat money. Such contradictions are quite commonplace in discussions of economics. But this book has already established that money in the United States--Federal Reserve Notes and checkbook money--is created by the privately owned banks: namely, Federal Reserve Banks, commercial banks, and thrift institutions. Since money comes into existence as debt, the aggregate debt is mathematically unpayable since only the principal is created. It becomes mathematically impossible to repay interest on money that has been created in this fashion, since the interest was not created along with the debt. For interest to be repaid, it must be taken from another person's borrowed principal.... Note that when you go to the supermarket, department store, or car dealership, salespeople hover about, trying to persuade you to part with your money and leave with their products--products that ten years ago would have required 40 percent of the current price. In reality, despite price increases due to inflationary forces, it is the product, through its producer and distributor, that chases the dollar. It is not the other way around, as most economists would have you believe. You need only look at television, leaf through a magazine, or page through a newspaper to confirm that there are thousands of ads trying to sell you something. If the problem was too much money chasing too few goods, one might expect to see consumers--cash in hand--seeking out various products in all those ads. A more scientific explanation of inflation should be demanded.... ...now let's turn to the cost-push inflation argument, an argument that centers on the "too few goods" side of the inflation equation. This theorem states that when production costs increase for whatever reason, manufacturers decrease their offerings of goods and services to the market at prevailing prices, thus again bidding up prices. Cost-push inflation is essentially the same as demand-pull inflation, except that it is stated in reverse, and I have already dealt at length with the theory of too much money chasing too few goods as a cause of inflation.... Traditional economists have too long been preoccupied with the so-called tautology MV = PQ in which M is the transaction money supply (M1), V is the velocity of money, P is the price of goods and services, and Q is the gross national product (GNP). Results of such a formula can be predictable only if three of these four values are constants. This formula ignores the dynamic nature of the money supply (M1) that changes from hour to hour. Money is constantly being destroyed as loans are repaid. This formula totally ignores this factor and more importantly it ignores the all-debt nature of money and the millions of dollars that are being removed daily from the economic arena to pay interest to the money creators. Repayment of loans and interest reduce the M1--transaction money--that is the lifeblood of commerce and industry. In addition, velocity, prices, and GNP are continuously changing. In fact, the formula, MV = PQ has no constant and scientifically is not only meaningless but is also useless. Suppose all the money in existence in the economy totals $1 trillion. This sum has thus been borrowed from the banks, the money creators. As long as this money is in existence in the economy, it is a debt at interest owed to the banks and therefore must be repaid to them. Let us assume that this trillion dollars was borrowed, regardless by whom, at a 10 percent annual interest, mainly to activate production of goods and services and to facilitate the transaction of goods and services. At the end of the year, the total debt to the banks will be $1 trillion of principal plus 10 percent of $100 billion dollars of interest. Can the aggregate debt be paid? Obviously the impossible mathematical demands of an all-debt money system are revealed, for the answer is a resounding "no." In such a scenario, those that are able to repay their aggregate debt have used someone else's borrowed principal to make their interest payments. Thus, those others will not be able to repay their total principal and interest. In an all-debt money system, for some to succeed, others must fail--they will fall victim to bankruptcies and business failures, even though they work hard and intelligently.... Let us now address the $100 billion of interest on the $1 trillion debt for the one-year period. The sum can either be removed from the M1 to pay the banks and thus decrease the M1 to $900 billion, or the borrowers can leave the $1 trillion dollars constant in the economy and borrow more money for their interest payments (the $100 billion). If the interest is borrowed, it will not enter the economy in the form of an increase in M1--the M1 does not increase to $1.1 trillion--but instead only generates more debt, the debt on the books of the bank will be increased to $1.1 trillion. And herein lies an important clue as to the real cause of inflation. The third alternative is to combine the two scenarios, but no matter what course we take, one thing is certain--a $100 billion interest charge exists and is owed by the borrowers. If the $1 trillion was created all for commercial loans, then the $100 billion of interest charged by the banks is a business expense to the borrowers and will be added to the cost of existing goods as such. The costs are passed along to consumers in the form of price increases, and the unchanged quantities of goods and services now demand more dollars. To be more direct, the existing money supply has been devalued or debased because prices have gone up. Because the existing money supply has been devalued by the interest payments, the purchasing power in the marketplace needs to be restored. This task can only be accomplished by further borrowing to pay interest and to continue the exchange of the higher priced goods and services. This further borrowing, which increases the money supply, is the reason conventional economists erroneously conclude that too much money causes inflation. These economists have the cause and effect relationship reversed. Although it is true that during an inflationary period the money supply increases, one is not the cause of the other.' -- Jacques S. Jaikaran, Debt Virus, pp. 80-94
  18. Lord Browne's recommendations * The £3,290 a year cap on student fees should be scrapped – and universities should be free to charge what they like. Sounds like there's no upper limit. Although the government takes a progressively larger share from the university's charge at the higher fee levels. So a tax before you've even finished
  19. "If you are a graduate and currently repaying an income contingent loan your repayment threshold will rise in line with inflation from April 2012." Nope, you're not safe by any stretch. It's 1.5% for now though.
  20. I'd imagine the locals might have something to say about that There is mention of a scholarship scheme, no doubt it will be incredibly restricted.
  21. The mayoral election had electronic voting? ...
  22. That's good of you to do that, unfortunately it isn't always possible (or the will isn't there). The complexities of the assessment system mean that people do fall through the cracks and are left with less than the assumed grant support for "poor" students.
  23. In other words landlordism is not capitalism. Appropriating wealth through monopoly priviledge (eg over land\natural resources) is not the same as earning it through genuine investment\labour\etc. Property rights are rooted in the universal right of self-ownership. But since one cannot even be a "self" without access to land (to "be" is to be -- "somewhere"), it follows that the right of access to the Earth on which all must live, yet which nobody produced, is an "equal" right. To insist otherwise is to say that those without land titles have no right of self-ownership, and hence no right to life itself. That is a violation of property rights. http://www.grundskyld.dk/23-Perplex-Ch4.html Of course, it would be unmanagable to divide up land into equal shares. Hence the collection of "economic rent" via land value tax. The founders of the US had the same idea: "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed." -- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Oct. 28, 1785 "Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, paragraphs 11 to 15
  24. No mention of shrinking the trillions worth of military spending?
  25. Not directly, but everyone needs to live somewhere. They'll be rack-rented instead, along with anyone else who can't afford to buy.
  • 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.