dipstick
-
Posts
1,258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by dipstick
-
-
no i mean ad hominem, which is a type of logical fallacy.
google, very helpful device. maybe use it now and again? it'll save me a job.
And you should read more than one Google post.
It actually means a personal fallacy.
-
The lucky streak is the high interest rates that for some reason is always highlighted as being a bad thing, anyone working and accumulating assets based on that in the last 40 years has ridden a declining interest rate/expanding debt cycle, thats an extraordinarily fortunate accident of birth (thus the cost of debt has declined in proportion to its expansion and that in turn has naturally driven asset prices and perceived wealth up)
Its a very different scenario to riding the interest rate cycle up the other side where the cost of debt becomes more expensive and asset prices are driven down as they do so destroying perceived wealth, its a much harder part of the debt cycle to ride and succeed
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%.
-
you might want to have a chat with scepticus about that statement
yes, terrible shame.
i generally take ad hominems as proof i am right and non response as agreement, fyi.
Oh, you do like that 'Ad hominems' don't you?
Do you mean personal?
(it saves you writing two words)
-
we had baby boomers - that is a generation who got themselves a load of stuff they already used on tick which has to be paid for by the next generation and have promised themselves a load of stuff for the future that has to be paid for by the next geneation.
get over it.
theres a reason the economy is awash with debt, and it's not because the boomers paid up in full in advance. nope, it's because the boomers took the money and the state enabled freebies and never asked where the money came from
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...
-
wasn't free tho was it?
everything was on tick, and the bill is due (to be paid by their children)
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.
-
baby boomers are those born between 50 and 64 in the uk.
there was a baby boom, it started and ended later due to the slight delay in rebuilding.
www.google.co.uk
edit - because you have been so warm and friendly towards me i did your basic research for you.
France 1946–1974
United Kingdom 1946–1974
Finland 1945–1950
Germany 1955-1967
Sweden 1946–1952
Denmark 1946–1950
Netherlands 1946–1972
Ireland 1946–1982
Hungary 1946-1957
Iceland 1946–1969
New Zealand 1946–1961
Australia 1946–1961
if you do a bit more checking you'll see that the UK had two baby booms. which is a bit more than none fyi.
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.
-
Does it matter what NAME they were given - they've had much more opportunity then this generation, incredible lucky streak with regard to many things from free education to housing to jobs etc.
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.
-
Er, you know it's just a lazy generalisation anyway? If you want to be pedantic about it then there's no 'Generation X' either - that was also a US coined phrase. But there is a definite bulge in the number of people born after the war in the UK, so you could use that as proof if you wanted.
p.s. I'd stop arguing with Injin; you'll only encourage him.
He doesn't need arguing with, not by me. Just a tax man or the dole office. Personally I don't care which.
-
that was the maximum in the year you said (only claimed by 28% of students.) ain't google grand?
yes it's a terrible shame that a no mark like me can use logic and facts in a semi public way without forelock tugging his betters. truly terrible.
baby boomers exist in the uk, it's just a slightly altered demographic that the us one (ending in 1964) because of the delay in the uk getting going again which you mentioned. you can find all of this out via google, try it.
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.
-
who by?
wouldn't be their boomer parents would it?
i'm pleased to se you are also scrabbling for ad hominem.
address the points or you can also gtfo.
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?
-
i make no such claim, i'm not youthful for a start.
your ad hominem has gone nowhere, stop scrabbling around for scraps and go back and address some of the debating points or gtfo.
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.
-
You tell that my Old Man, sat in his 7 bedroom, mortgage free mansion, that was conveniently inflated away in the 70s. Make sure you also remind him of the IOU systems as he collects his hearty final salary pension every month - in money - you know, the stuff you can exchange for other stuff in shops. Free university, free university for his two kids, free healthcare. Not a bad run if you ask me.
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?
-
my clients.
and again, who i am and what i do doesn't mean anything as regards the system as a whole. you know this, hence the rather sad attempt to not back up what you have said and to instead ad hominem.
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.
-
i'm self employed cheers.
i'm also not greedy, couple of hours a week does me just fine.
Injin's work ethic.
Can we post it as a sticky?
-
ye there is, the timing is slightly different on them though.
whining and protesting worked for boomers, it doesn't work now.
as little as possible.
you did well there, but £390 isn't much.
and your personal circumstances mean ****** all. overall picture please.
no, it won't.
everyone goes down the tubes together, the myth of the rugged individualist really needs to die. a man with his gold "life raft" in a destroyed economy is still hosed.
Why aren't you working????
-
"really trying" doesn't work now.
if the whole economic and political system collapses under you, your personal qualities mean ****** all.
there is a whole generation with their fingers crossed looking for a lottery win as you outline above because their isn't anything else to aim at.
Why don't you go get a job?
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
Sorry, am I missing a trick here?
The English haven't moved to Scotland.
Which is cheaper, England or Scotland.
Did you not know that there has been a huge influx of English to Scotland. Did you not know that in large parts of the Highlands and Islands the English now outnumber the Scottish?
Or maybe I've got it wrong. Maybe I'm not here at all and the people from England who moved in a few doors up aren't really English and neither is the woman next door to them who moved in a month or so ago.
In fact, maybe my next door neighbours on both sides didn't do it. Neither did the person next to them, or next to them, then Scotttish, then English, then English, then English, then Scottish, then English.
Of course the blasted housing boom pushed up prices in Scotland. Sell a semi in Surrey buy a detached up here. And if you're lucky wipe out your mortgage in the bargain
Keeping HRs won't maintain the Scottish prices for ever, but it will for a while, long enough for the English prices to drop (CGT going, HIPs going) and then the Scottish are going to be well and truly stuck.
See; this is the clue!
-
Oh dear. Toys, pram...
I am not trying to turn this into an "I hate the English" thread but you seem to be. Clearly all the English who have moved into the area where you live has really p-ed you off. I think that's the real issue you have.
Banking systems, international exchange rates, availability of cheap credit, national government policies, increasingly exotic financial mechanisms all seem to mean nothing to you. It's all the fault of the English. Grow up.
Too many Scot's want to blame someone else when something goes wrong. We need to start being more accountable to ourselves and to each other.
I AM English!!!!
'baby Boomers Are Very Privileged Human Beings'
in House prices and the economy
Posted
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.