Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dipstick

  1. No, you twerp. The point being is that credit only became popular at the end of the 1990s. It wasn't available, easily, before. Now. If you'd like to prove to me where you could easily obtain credit in the, let's say, 1970s, I'd like to see it. Thank you.
  2. And you should read more than one Google post. It actually means a personal fallacy.
  3. That argument only works if you can actually hold on to your assets during the high interest rates. Millions didn't. If you don't believe me, just lobby the government to shove interest rates up to 10%.
  4. Oh, you do like that 'Ad hominems' don't you? Do you mean personal? (it saves you writing two words)
  5. Yeah. Not exactly decided which generation it is though, have you? Can't really pin it down. Tell you what, I'll give you a clue. Back in 1999 I was told by colleagues at work that I could now apply for a credit card (apparently they were giving them to anybody) and, if I kept transferring the balance I could get 0% interest ... for ever. I'll just reiterate the year for you again...1999. Must have been the start of the boomer era...
  6. Waddayamean, on tick. Credit en masse is a very recent invention. It's what got us into this mess, or haven't you been listening? Years ago on this forum there used to be a lad in his early 20s. I can't for the life of me remember his user id. And I should, because that lad was a real philosopher. He had a brilliant way of thinking. He worked, if I remember rightly, in a warehouse. And now the forum has been taken over by people like you, who don't actually have much to contribute at all. Shame.
  7. Are you completely daft? Okay, we all know there was a BABY BOOM. There have been a few. Or are you trying to say that because there was a baby boom, the people were priviledged - because that's just stupid. Baby booms occur for all kinds of reasons. End of wars (men coming home) Governments lifting restrictions (China) Financial incentives. What we are actually discussing is BABY BOOMERS - that term is derived from middle class Americans. It doesn't mean every time there is a baby boom every body becomes priviledged. Similar words, one is based purely on statistics in respect of demographics.
  8. Hang on, Sweetheart. Did you actually read any other posts? What lucky streak? Free education? I thought education was still free, it's just higher education that isn't. I paid £5,000 for mine. It was a choice. Housing, wasn't and never has been, to my knowledge, free. What..what...what...? Jobs. I'll sort of give you that one. But there are many manual jobs out there if you're willing to do them. My local petrol station has had a sign up for a fortnight.
  9. He doesn't need arguing with, not by me. Just a tax man or the dole office. Personally I don't care which.
  10. No. You can Google till you go blue. There was no BABY BOOMER era in the UK. I was born in 1960. It was working class Britain. Most folks still had outside loos, lived in council houses and no car. Black and white telly. No phone. No central heating. Most work was manual. And if you are telling me the 70s were great, maybe you ought to do a bit of research. Tell you what, you go watch Boys from the Black Stuff. Then we had high interest rates. Then in the 80's we had the boom and bust that went into the 90s. You're an ill informed idiot clutching at Google Straws. You're a twerp.
  11. Okay. It's clear you're not understanding the point. I'll try again. The term BABY BOOMERS developed because of the wealth of the middle classes in AMERICA in the 40/50s. There were NO BABY BOOMERS in the UK. Unless of course you are going to prove otherwise?
  12. You get back to addressing it. I made valid points, you interspersed with made up figures (£390 loan to go to uni) No. So, if you really want to get back to addressing the point you will focus on the fact that baby boomers never actually existed in the UK. The trouble these days is the internet gives lazy people like you, a voice. You do nothing, you contribute nothing, you just yap.
  13. And, you being a person of principle, will have told him to cut you out of his will? Naahh. Course you won't. Besides which, I don't know that many people who are sat in 7 bedroomed places. You must have had a very comfortortable upbringing. Lucky, weren't you?
  14. Actually it does mean something. You're representative. You claim, constantly, to represent the youth of today. What you are in fact is a lazy gobshite.
  15. Actually Tahoma, you sort of hit the nail on the head in the area where I did (do?) feel sorry for them. Back in the early 2000s I did some teaching of GNVQ students. For the majority of the time they were on a 'football' course...for me, they came for business studies. Jeez. Thing is, the difference between them at 16 and me at 16 was astounding. For starters they all thought they were going to be famous footballers and earn zillions. Good luck to 'em, but common sense says it ain't gonna happen for most. The other thing was, that on leaving school I was expected to get a job, these days that wasn't happening; it was kids being pushed from one training course to another. These courses are, we all know, essentially worthless. But it does keep government unemployment figures down, doesn't it? Don't get me wrong the lads were a pain in the backside and I'd been put in there precisely because they were - but hell, who can blame them. Football and business studies...right. And they had no learned work ethic. None. These were working class lads who really didn't understand the concept of going out there and going it alone and having, at some point, to struggle. That's 'our' fault.
  16. Not posted for ages. Is Will Hutton brain dead? For starters: there is no such thing as a UK Baby Boomer. This term was developed for people born in the US in the 1940/50s. The US in that era was a very different place from the UK in that era. In the US they were getting cars, fridges, TVs. In the UK we were just getting over war, losing thousands of soldiers, - we weren't even getting over rationing because that didn't finish till 1954. Bacon, for instance, was rationed initially, at 4oz per week, which dropped to 2oz per fortnight in 1948. Chocolates and sweets were 4oz per week. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what the idiots today are jealous of? They would prefer to have been brought up as children in this era instead of the one they were brought up in? I know, from experience, that trying to convince anyone that actually they aren't really 'suffering' today is a waste of time - they know they aren't suffering, they just figure if they keep whining long enough they'll get their own way (God only knows what they think that is) but to me it reflects a country on the skids. I keep reading posts by Injin - don't you work mate? You're never off here - for years. I'm a woman. I was born in 1960. I won't retire until I'm 66 (if I'm lucky). I went to uni as a mature student in 1993 - I had a loan. I have to pay for my dentist. I don't have either a private or company pension. I didn't inherit (and won't) diddly squat. I had a pension forecast done recently - something just over £50 a week (and that will probably dwindle to nowt) I rented a house from the age of 17. With my partner, we bought our first house (after saving for 3 years) in 1983. That house cost 13,500. That same house today costs 82,000. My partner was on £30 a week and I was on about £19. Go do the maths. There's no difference in affordability between then and now. Only difference I can gather is that people today want to be able to afford that same house or a better one, as a single person. No way could I have afforded it on my own. Ever. Despite the constant whining, I did used to feel sorry for the younger end today, but this constant referal to a niche of society that never really existed, tied together with the facts, just makes me realise how stupid people are. Yes. Anything over a terraced property is overpriced. Yes. The economy is going belly up - we all know why. Quit whining about non-existent stuff. It's not like in the past, whining isn't going to get you what you want. Tenacity, forethought and true understanding of the circumstances is the only thing gonna bail you out of this mess.
  17. ... and another thing, aren't we all forgetting that little thing called trust. Maybe, just maybe, buyers do like to get their own surveys done? Don't know how prevelant it is, but the woman I mentioned earlier who had a Home Report done (and paid about £800 for) did sell her property. But, although it fell through the first time, that buyer insisted on their own survey, as did the people who eventually bought it. What reasons they had for doing so I don't know - maybe distrust of adhering to a survey produced, in-essence, for the seller, maybe a lender issue - but they shouldn't have needed to get their own. Same thing happened with me when I was selling in Scotland but prior to the HR. One buyer got a surveyor in but it fell through, second buyer comes along and, believe it or not, got the same company in. They didn't buy into it, they knew the company that prepared it, yet still they got the same company (different surveyor) even though the original was still within its timescale and covered them perfectly. Maybe serious buyers just like to cover themselves?
  18. Just to say though: Thinking back, the boom has cream crackered the Scottish system in more ways than one. As I understand it, before, if a house came on you wanted, you either had a survey done or bought into one. Possibly one or two other potential buyers did this as well. The offers over system, I remember an agent telling me, was something like 5-10%. Then of course we had the boom, and as I mentioned earlier a 75k property could go for 225k. That meant that many, many people were bidding and many people (me included) were having to buy into the surveys over and over again. Much much money was wasted. The bidding system and the survey system simply weren't compatible for that period in time. Should it continue (in parts of Scotland it's still very hectic) then the Home Report should have worked. Stopped all the buying into surveys over and over again. But the thing is, lenders decided to be pinickity about who did the surveys - maybe that was where the system failed? Although the Scottish Government think it's been a great success.
  19. You can't sell your property, privately or otherwise, until you have a Home Report in your hand. The only exception is that if somebody approaches you and offers to buy the property as an initial approach. Hence, anybody thinking of selling their property, has to stump up the money first. Half now, half later may work but to be honest, despite its problems I preferred the old Scottish system. Yes, it went crazy in the boom, and paying out £200 to a surveyor to email or fax through a survey that had already had the full price paid on it by a previous prospective purchaser, may have galled the first prospective buyer and even galled the 2nd one when you think the surveyor is just pressing 'send.' But it did work. And it was still better than the English system of each buyer having to pay for a new survey each time. Plus, because the contract was between surveyor and buyer because they were paying money, then you had some come back. Of course you would still be in the position of hoping that the original survey was done by a surveyor who would be recognised by your lender.
  20. ... and I am not blaming anybody - English or otherwise. What I am saying is that the boom which started down south (and that to me is southern England) travelled upwards during the course of time. With, I will grant you the exception of Wales, which snuck off a bit because at the time it was the cheapest area for people to buy rural properties. And you know how I know that, because I was there at the time!!!! Anybody in Wales want to disagree .... no, right, I'll carry on. And the influx into the rural areas of Scotland got bigger and better gradually travelling up country. I personally put a bid in for a house at O/O 75k - I didn't get it. When I phoned the agents he started reeling off properties at 225k - because that's what the first one went for. Do you really think the Scots would have been bid that much over on their own system???? Back in 2003/4 it was a mad house and they were all English buyers. And yes, thank you, I am quite aware of all the other economic factors involved - been discussing it on this forum for years.
  • 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.